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

We are debating the Australian Education Bill 2013 and the Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. The Prime Minister has described the government's Gonski reforms as 'the biggest change to school education in 40 years', yet the Senate has been given only two hours and 45 minutes, or 165 minutes, to scrutinise and debate these bills. This is an insult to the Senate and it is an insult to the taxpayers, whom the government wants to saddle with a $16.2 billion bill for its reforms. That is 165 minutes to debate the expenditure of $16.2 billion.

The government is as careless with people's money as it is with the constitutional process of Senate scrutiny and Senate review. Of course, this is not the first time that the Senate has debated the Australian Education Bill. The difference is that the last time, a few months ago, we were debating a nine-page document which was short on detail and rich on platitudes and motherhood statements. It was more of a policy document, or an aspirational rhapsody, than detailed legislation. Now we have in front of us two bills and, sure, there is plenty of detail—I accept that. Yet there is not enough time to debate them properly on this the second or perhaps the third last day of sittings of the second term of the Rudd and Gillard governments.

The government has had years to get this done and to get it done properly. The Prime Minister—the then Minister for Education—has been talking for a long time about her desire to see a new school funding model. Mr David Gonski was commissioned in 2010 to look into it, he delivered his report in November 2011 and here we are today, more than a year and a half later, with less than three hours to debate bills that reflect a deeply flawed new funding model which has been rejected by many states and territories.

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

That is not true.

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

Yes, it is. This farce provides a telling epitaph for the Labor government. Like the French Revolution, the government's Building the Education Revolution, which started with much promise and public enthusiasm, ends a year later in disillusionment and the guillotine.

The Australian Education Bill 2013 establishes a new federal funding formula for non-government schools. It also amends the legislation to include funding arrangements for government schools but outlines different arrangements for government schools depending on whether their state government has agreed to those changes. Under the new system, all participating schools will be entitled to a base amount of funding for every student which will indexed annually. This will be the new schooling resource standard, colloquially known by the acronym SRS. Non-government schools will receive a percentage of the SRS amount based on the school's socioeconomic status score, which is referred to today as a 'capacity to contribute'. This capacity to contribute will not apply to government schools, special and special-assistance schools, sole-provider schools and schools with a majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.

In addition, students and schools will attract six different types of loadings: students with disability, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, students with low socioeconomic status, students who have low English proficiency, schools that are not in major cities, and of course small-size schools. It sounds good, doesn't it? After six years of the Labor government, I shudder every time the government think they have a good idea. Even if, like broken clocks, they are sometimes right, the implementation is so often botched that it makes you wish that Labor had just stuck to bad ideas and stopped giving good ideas such a bad name.

In reality, there are numerous problems with Labor's attempt to implement school funding reforms recommended by Mr Gonski and his review. The shadow education minister, Mr Pyne, stakeholders in the Catholic and independent school sectors, as well as the governments of Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, have identified a number of them over the past few months. Some of these concerns are contained in the amendment I intend to move shortly at this second reading stage. There is the persistent concern about schools actually being worse off under the new funding system. The government maintains that no school will be worse off. State and territory governments beg to differ. According to them, around 469 government schools in Queensland, Victoria and the Northern Territory alone will lose out, never mind potentially hundreds of Catholic and independent schools. In my office in Brisbane, there have been many calls and much concern has been expressed, particularly by Catholic and independent schools, about whether they will be worse off, but in some cases even by government schools. Without any doubt and without any debate, concern has certainly been expressed—even the government would need to acknowledge that. They have yet to—how do I put this?—satisfy both government and non-government schools that none of them will be worse off. That is yet to be satisfied.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

That is correct. If anyone in the Labor Party thinks that every school sector in this country is convinced that they will not be worse off, that is incorrect. As I stand here in the Senate today, they still are. The funding inequities are not limited to bricks and mortar schools into our towns and cities. The Christian Education Ministries have highlighted what they see as the government's legislated underfunding of distance education school students in the non-government sector. This was an issue raised with me just the other day. Students receiving their education in this system only attract 35 per cent of the schooling resource standard, but, despite repeated attempts, the Christian Education Ministries are yet to receive an adequate explanation on how the government arrived at this figure. This is just an example—it is not the only one—of repeated concern amongst different school sectors in this country, particularly, I might add, in my home state of Queensland.

Of course, it does not help that throughout all this process the Gillard government has demonstrated a singular lack of transparency and openness. It is hard to reconcile the government's rhetoric and spin with what we are reading in the budget papers and what we actually know about the proposals. Take, for example, the Prime Minister's claim that $9.8 billion of additional funds will be required to transition to the new system over the next six years, between now and 2019, yet in the 2013-14 budget there is only $2.98 billion over the forward estimates, never mind that $2.1 billion of the $2.98 billion is not new money at all but merely various national partnerships that have been cut by the government and redirected towards financing Gonski, thus leaving only $880 million in genuine new money over the next four years.

Even with that $2.98 billion, the government remains short on its commitment—about $2.6 billion short, in fact—because, if we take the government at its word on the $9.8 billion over six years, the allocation over the forward estimates should be $5.6 billion. When I asked the education department officials at the budget estimates in June why there is only $2.98 billion in the budget when there should be $5.6 billion instead, they were confounded and did not explain. All this suggests that the government's reforms consist of a trickle of money right now and the promise of a windfall sometime way in the future. If you believe this government will give you billions of dollars sometime after the next two elections, then I have a nice bridge on Sydney Harbour to sell to you. The government has quite simply been making it up as it goes along, promising everyone money it does not have and, when these enticements are not enough, it promises some more money.

Then there is red tape—always a big favourite of this government. States, non-government authorities and individual schools will be required by regulation to provide extensive information to the federal government. Information requirements will include school census data, other data for the purposes of a new national collection regime to conduct research on school education, implementation plans, student reports to parents and other information about a school. State governments in Victoria, Western Australia and Queensland all suggest that the National Plan for School Improvement extends the reach of the federal government into the operations of state schools and will result in further duplication and compliance and more red tape.

Last but not least, there is concern about proposals to change the capacity-to-contribute measure for non-government schools in the future. The bilateral agreement between the federal and New South Wales governments suggests that the federal government will review the socioeconomic status score—that methodology—by 2017 to ensure this remains the most appropriate means of assessing the relative educational advantage of non-government schools.

This agreement suggests that capacity to contribute will be defined as 'the anticipated level of private contribution will be based on a school's SES score until a new, individual measure of parental capacity to contribute is developed'. There is no mention of this new measure in the revised legislation. Just consider Labor's recent forays into class warfare and stirring up of class envy, and its deep-seated suspicion of, if not outright hostility to, non-government schools. Who could forget the infamous school 'hit list'? If I were a Catholic or an independent school, I would be very worried. The government should rule out the introduction of a new means test beyond 2017, but, of course, it will not do that.

These are all real and immediate problems with these two education bills. There are also deeper policy and philosophical problems with Labor's plans for our schools. The government's Gonski reforms are a typical social democratic measure. Labor has yet to find a problem that it could not throw money at. The money, of course, it does not have, and it has to borrow it. In this case, it is throwing tomorrow's children's money to supposedly fix today's children's problems. What evidence is there that more money will mean better schools? What is the evidence that more money will mean better schools and better educational outcomes? Ben Jensen, the director of the Grattan Institute School Education Program noted that:

Despite its strengths, the Gonski review retells the same old, and failed, story of Australian education: that the only way to fix our schools is to spend more money and to change the way it is divided between schools and students.

…   …   …

Supporters of Gonski claim it is a 'once in a generation opportunity'. That will be true only if the money is well spent. If it is spent the way education money is being spent in the past, it will be a complete waste—and risk dooming further reform efforts for a generation.

Across the past decade, education spending has increased by nearly three times as much as Gonski is proposing, yet our school performance has stagnated or has fallen.

Mr Jensen is merely echoing a growing international consensus which now acknowledges that there is little or no relationship between spending per student and student outcomes and that other factors, such as teacher quality, parental involvement, principal and school autonomy, as well as a robust curriculum, play a far greater role in giving children a quality education—a far greater role in giving kids a better education.

For Labor, it is not about the outcomes, certainly not medium- and long-term outcomes, but about short-term political advantage. 'We care about education,' says the Labor Party. 'Look how much money we are spending. Please re-elect us, because we're throwing all this money at the issue.' In reality, Labor are like a deadbeat dad who blew all the money on booze and smokes and who now breaks his baby girl's piggy bank, steals the money and uses it to buy her a bike to show how much he loves her. That is what has happened to the Labor Party.

If the government throws another $5 billion, $10 billion or $15 billion at schools, will it actually make any difference? Past experience is not very encouraging. Over the past six years, in addition to all the recurrent spending, Labor has already spent over $20 billion on computers in schools, the school halls program and various national partnerships. Did all that money make our system any better? Did that extra $20 billion make our kids smarter, improve their literacy or numeracy, or help them acquire new knowledge and new skills? Did it? Judging by both domestic and international results, the answer is a resounding 'No!' The 2012 NAPLAN results show that literacy and numeracy, as measured in years 3, 5, 7 and 9, have been, for all intents and purposes, stagnant since 2008. Yes, there have been some slight improvements here and there, some up and down, but, overall, very little improvement. Even the minister, Mr Garrett, was forced to acknowledge in December last year that:

There shouldn't be a single education minister in the states nor a single senior state education bureaucrat who can take any comfort from these NAPLANs.

Neither, by the way, should the minister and the federal bureaucracy, which so far have managed to get no bang whatsoever for their $20 billion bucks, just a very expensive whimper.

If NAPLAN results are discouraging, how do we, as a nation, compare to other developed countries, including our regional neighbours and our competitors? The answer is also, unfortunately, not that great. Take the Programme for International Student Assessment, or PISA, which tests 15-year-old students on their preparedness to use the knowledge and skills they have gained at school to meet real-life challenges. The latest PISA results show that Australian students are making no progress and, in some cases, are actually going backwards. For example, the 2009 results show a 13-point drop in reading performance compared to 2000. Or take the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study, which revealed that a quarter of Australia's year 4 students fail to meet the minimum standard in reading for their age. In that test, Australia ranked 27th out of 48 countries in reading, on a similar level to New Zealand, Poland and Lithuania. Or take the 2011 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, which shows our students stagnating for years and years, while, at the same time, countries like Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan have experienced dramatic improvements, and even the United States has shown a steadier improvement in performance.

So, what is the answer? What is Labor's answer? It is: 'We have spent $20 billion already in an education revolution, all for no results, so let's just now spend another $16 billion on top of that in the Gonski reforms.' All of us want our schools to be well-resourced, but we also know that money is not necessarily the only answer, particularly considering the random, wasteful and unaccountable manner in which Labor tends to throw it at any given problem it sees.

The two bills we are debating today represent a deeply flawed proposal which substitutes another cash splash for serious educational reform. It promises schools money the government does not have in two elections from now. It claims to be better and fairer than the old system. Yet it leaves hundreds if not thousands of government and non-government schools worse off. Labor has once again managed to achieve the impossible by taking an important area of public policy and turning it into a debacle of historic proportions. In fact, to paraphrase the Prime Minister, it is the biggest debacle in school education in 40 years.

I have circulated the amendment in my name on behalf of the coalition. The amendment calls on the Senate to note the need for the government to provide certainty that individual schools will not be left worse off under the new arrangements, and the importance of more transparency regarding the financial impact of the proposed arrangements. The amendment also calls on the Senate to note its concern with parts of the National Plan for School Improvement that increase the federal interference in the operation of state government and Catholic schools by micromanaging schools and, of course, increasing red tape, and with proposals to change the capacity to contribute measure for non-government schools into the future.

This has been a debacle, not because the intention of the government is not good, but simply because, like so many good ideas that the government thinks they have, the implementation has been and will be a shambles. I move:

At the end of the motion, add: "but the Senate:

(a) notes:

  (i) the need for the Government to provide certainty that individual schools will not be left worse off under the new arrangements, and

  (ii) the importance of more transparency regarding the financial impact of the proposed arrangements; and

(b) further notes its concern about:

  (i) parts of the National Plan for School Improvement, which have the effect of micromanaging schools or increasing red-tape, and the increased federal interference in the operations of state government and Catholic schools; and

  (ii) proposals to change the capacity to contribute measure for non-government schools in the future."

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Australian Education Bill 2013 and the Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. To the extent that they establish a framework for needs based funding of schools in Australia the Australian Greens commend these two pieces of legislation. The Australian Greens believe that education is the foundation of democracy, and a well-resourced, public education system striving for excellence is the guarantee of a healthy and fair society. It is the right of all children to have access and opportunity to high-quality and affordable education and for their parents to expect as much. The public system is the only guarantee of this right.

The Greens have argued for a decade that our national funding model needs to be changed to make it fairer, to make sure that public education is properly funded throughout Australia and to invest billions more in education commensurate with the funding of our peers in other developed countries. In an increasingly divided community, where people's destinies are often determined by their postcodes, quality public education can be a unifying force. It fosters connection and understanding by bringing together children who would otherwise always move in different orbits. It can be the lifeline for all kids, whoever they are, wherever they live and whatever their circumstances, to achieve their full potential and to be the best they can be. It is also recognised that, as one of the best financial investments a nation can make, higher education standards and outcomes for everyone will enhance our country's human capital and increase skills, innovation and productivity in our community. We believe that a principled, transparent and enduring schools funding model, where public money is fairly prioritised according to need, is necessary to ensure a world-quality public school system that is accessible to all children no matter what their background or circumstances. It is true that this legislation does not go as far towards establishing that model as we believe is necessary, but it is certainly a big step in the right direction, and it is the most important educational funding reform in Australia in decades. Needs based funding is necessary to ensure public schools are funded to provide a world-class education for any student regardless of their background.

The Gonski review of funding for schooling was commissioned to devise an optimal education funding model. The Gonski review concluded that our current system is opaque, complex and inequitable with disadvantage concentrated in particular schools, predominantly government schools, which educate the lion's share of students with disadvantage. Gonski recommended a needs based funding model and a substantial increase in national education funding of $5 billion per year, which has subsequently been increased for inflation to $6.5 billion per year. Despite the coalition's disparagement about the need for money and throwing money at the problem, it was a universal consensus recommendation of the Gonski review that, indeed, Australia's funding of our national education system was lagging behind those of our peers in the developed world.

It is ludicrous to suggest that this is not about money. It is about many things. It is about more than money, but it is certainly about money as well. Why is it otherwise that the wealthy schools are not offering to give the money back that they receive? Because, of course, it is about money. Having visited schools across Australia, it has been very clear to me that those disadvantaged public schools could do so much more if they had more resources available to them to enhance the educational opportunities of those students from disadvantage that they educate so well already.

The Gonski review also concluded that an independent and expert national schools resourcing body should determine the applicable schooling resource standards. The Australian Greens strongly regret that this legislative framework fails to provide for this body. Such a body, independent of governments and the various sectors and interests that characterise education debates in Australia, could provide the core of the governance necessary to ensure that funding for schooling is provided in a way that maximises its educational impact and minimises self-interest and sectoral interests, as are often advocated by the main players in the system. An independent national schools resourcing body would develop, maintain, review and index the schooling resource standards and associated loadings to provide for currency and effectiveness. The Australian Greens lament the fact that this key component of the model that the Gonski review devised is missing from the legislation.

Another key recommendation of the Gonski review is that, in the case of the non-government sector, the assessment of a school's need for public funding should consider the capacity of the parents who enrol their children in the school to contribute financially towards the school's resource requirements. A genuine needs based funding model would ensure that all resources of a school are taken into account in determining need.

Such an approach needs to be carefully implemented—there is considerable diversity in the existing private contribution among non-government schools—however, the Gonski review concluded that this is achievable in developing a new framework subject to other funding parameters and transitional arrangements. I will be moving a second reading amendment to encapsulate the points that I have been making.

The Australian Greens have two substantive amendments to the Australian Education Bill. The first relates to yearly reporting obligations, which provide for transparency in how public funds are distributed within a system and moves these from the draft regulations into the legislation. This would require schools to report their resources—their assets, income, fees and other aspects—as an essential element of transparency and accountability in the context of needs based funding. We wish to embed this in legislation rather than leave it in a regulation and run the risk of it being undone by a future coalition government which has not yet acknowledged that there is an inequity at the heart of our current schools funding system, as was identified by the Gonski review.

This would also ideally overcome the risk of money being dissipated within bureaucracies before it arrives at the gates of the schools where it is most sorely needed. We also propose an independent review of the education funding model that this bill established, commencing in 2018.

The second Australian Greens amendment would simply require non-government schools to comply with antidiscrimination law. Equality is a core principle underpinning Australia's modern, proud democracy. Any school which is in receipt of large amounts of public funding should not have recourse to the exemption provisions set out in sections 37 and 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act, which allow it to discriminate against Australians at will.

The fact is that there are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex students in every education system in Australia, including religious schools. Sadly, recent research shows that the situation with respect to homophobia and homophobic abuse in schools is not improving. And systemic discrimination—discrimination upheld by social institutions and governments—legitimises such incidents. On the other hand, it is well established that policy protections for people's rights are associated with decreased risks of experiencing homophobic violence and decreased risks of self-harm and suicide rates.

In formulating this education reform, the government has taken the opportunity to increase policy requirements for schools, including more information gathering, and submitters to the inquiry on this bill noted that the architecture of the Australian Education Bill gives the Commonwealth the potential to exercise a high degree of control over the way in which government, Catholic and independent education systems and schools deliver education to Australian students.

The Australian Greens believe that this education reform package is an opportunity to bring school standards on discrimination into line with community standards, and set a benchmark for protecting people's rights. This is a great opportunity for Australia to align itself squarely with international human rights standards. It is very clear to the Australian Greens that if an organisation is receiving public funding to provide a service the Australian public has the right to expect it to abide by basic, widely held community standards and antidiscrimination principles.

Those are the two substantive amendments the Australian Greens will be moving. I move the Australian Greens second reading amendment in the terms circulated in the chamber.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wright, just to clarify the procedure here, we have a second reading amendment here before us, which we will need to deal with. Once that is dealt with you can move your amendment and we will deal with yours. That is all going to happen, as I understand it, at one o'clock. It will be put at one o'clock, after Senator Mason's. I am saying that just so that you are clear about where we are travelling here.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This plan before our chamber today to fix the inequities in our education system has been needed in this nation for a very long time. We have had rampant inequity and inequality take hold, with no plan to address that until now. I am very pleased to say that, through the Gonski review, this Labor government has been working very hard on getting the solutions in place.

The inequality has been a great cost to the nation, and it is time to do something about it. It is time for this parliament to do something about it. That is why it is very important that these changes pass this week. When you look at the impact of inequality on our nation, it is profound. Today, the wealthiest 20 per cent of Australians own 61 per cent of the nation's wealth and the poorest 20 per cent own just one per cent. This is something that is reflected, also, in our education systems.

We are a good deal less equal than countries such as Japan, Sweden and Norway, which have education systems that are also far more equal. We are one of the most unequal developed countries—keeping company with the US and Britain. This inequality is embedded in our nation's education system. So addressing inequality in education is certainly a key to fixing our education system. On that note, what we know from looking at education around the globe is that education systems that are more equal—systems that remove the inequality and give all students an opportunity—have much better educational outcomes. It is proven, globally, that this is the fact: nations that have more equal education systems do better. They have much better education outcomes overall and as a whole.

The current inequality comes at a great cost. We have needed a plan to fix this for a long time. A lot of the inequalities in our education system have been driven by the way our education system is funded, and it is time it was fixed. I am very proud to have the opportunity to do that in this place today. I note that when this plan passes some 60 per cent of the nation's students will be covered. But I think it is important that we see this nation realise 100 per cent coverage. On that note, I really want to see Western Australia come into this scheme. It is critical because, while WA is reasonably well resourced—we are, as a whole, closer to the student resource standard than some other states are—the most disadvantaged schools in my home state do not meet the resource standard put forward in this model. To my National Party colleagues across the chamber: it is rural and regional students that are currently the most disadvantaged in Western Australia. These are the students that would benefit from being brought into this model.

The Labor government is serious about education reform in Australia. It is about time we had a fair funding system in place so that every school, regardless of their state, regardless of the sector they are in and regardless of location—including rural and regional schools, schools in remote communities and schools in disadvantaged suburbs—get the money they need to do a great job. The cost of inequality is great. I would like to quote Dr Carmen Lawrence, who has been a significant contributor to the discussion around education equity and who was on the Gonski review. She said, in an article in The Monthlylast year:

In Australia, almost 80% of students from the lowest quarter of socioeconomic disadvantage attend government schools. The drift of students and resources from government to non-government schools has accelerated here in the last decade or so and further concentrated wealthier students in the private sector. As a result, there are more schools with very high proportions of students from disadvantaged backgrounds – mainly in the government system – and more with high concentrations of the most advantaged – mainly in private schools.

This is not about class warfare, as the opposition claims. It is not about envy—far from it. Far from it being about the politics of envy, it is about all parents wanting the best for their children. It is about making sure that no child in this country in the school that they are in is getting left behind. Parents want choice, but some parents have no choice. Choices are being taken away by the inequities in our education system. It is time to make sure those students are not left behind. I will give you a very clear example of how our country's students are being left behind. Dr Lawrence went on to say in this article:

In one country town in Western Australia, the local government high school lost ground dramatically after four private schools were opened; the most disadvantaged children were left behind with fewer teachers per student than in the new private schools. The total cost of education in the community skyrocketed, without any aggregate improvement in children's scores on routine tests.

I am not saying that it is a bad thing for new schools to be opened in communities—far from it. I am saying that it is absolutely immoral to leave behind students who have no education choices, to leave behind those schoolchildren who inevitably have less choice in education. Every student in this country deserves that choice. Parents making hard economic decisions in their households deserve the choice between a good private school and a good government school. That is the option that we should be giving students and families in this country.

One in 12 Australian students is currently not meeting minimum standards in reading, writing and maths in our country. We have a good deal of these students in WA, so I really want to see Western Australia become part of this plan. I think the plan has the potential to see our classrooms in the top five in the world by 2025, because it is a plan to properly resource all schools, all our children, teachers and classrooms, for generations to come. It is something that will see the bedrock of education in this country meet the kinds of quality standards that we expect—quality standards that are comparable with the best performing countries around the globe. Without these reforms before us, there is no plan to do that. The National Plan for School Improvement includes a new funding approach to make sure we get these things right. It responds to the problems in the system. In our plan, every state and every sector will see increased funding and more support for students in the classroom.

I note that Senator Mason is looking for a guarantee that no school will be worse off. We have made that commitment. As a bare minimum, we want every school in Australia to receive its current funding plus indexation of three per cent. This is not a competition between education sectors. We simply want to make sure that no student gets left behind. Schools that need more support to support their students will get it, irrespective of sector. We are prepared to guarantee this, and we are asking the states and territories to do the same.

Today, I ask Mr Colin Barnett to do the same for Western Australia's students. He now has but a few days left to sign up to this deal. He has to get it lined up by 30 June to make sure that Western Australian schools also have the opportunity of fixing the problems in our education system. The plan that we have before us responds to the needs of states, like WA, who have higher costs attached to delivering education in our system. As I said before, where the problems are in WA, where we fail to meet the student resource standard, is, most profoundly, in disadvantaged communities and in rural and regional areas.

This is where the funding under this model is targeted. It is a great benefit for Western Australia and it is time, in my view, for Senator Barnett to accept this offer. It is time for all schools in Western Australia to benefit from a fairer and more stable school funding system. Under the offer that we have made to Western Australia that is embedded in the plan before us, we have total funding growth for WA of $2.8 billion, which would make a massive difference to Western Australian students.

I am pleased that the offer was increased, because the $922 million that is on the table will go a very long way. There is $922 million under the current investment plan and then we have got the indexation, which will also see funding in Western Australia continuing to grow. This indexation needs to be locked in by both the Commonwealth and the states coming to an agreement. The Commonwealth is making a commitment to indexation of 4.7 per cent and we are asking the states to commit to three per cent so that both the states and the Commonwealth are playing their part in seeing education funding grow in our country.

We want all sectors to have the extra resources for our nation's schools that need it. I do not think school principals and teachers around Western Australia think locking in funding growth of around $2.8 billion is a bad deal. It is a good deal, it is a well-targeted deal and it will make an enormous difference to Western Australian schools. It makes good sense for WA.

I note that a decrease in funding would have occurred under the previous model when it stopped. WA will receive the same funding guarantee that we gave to New South Wales. That means every year they will receive an increase in base funding. What we have currently is a very volatile education funding system. The model introduced by the previous government sees indexation declining by a further three per cent. This means Western Australian schools have more funding year on year on year and have more certainty and more confidence about funding. So schools in Western Australia will be benefiting from this new suite of reforms if they come on board—and it is high time that Western Australia did. All schools in WA need to move on to a needs based funding model, consistent with the school-resource standard, to make sure that students in Western Australia do not get left behind.

I would like to contrast that with what we have before us in the opposition's non-plan for education. The education spokesperson for the coalition, Christopher Pyne, has confirmed that the coalition want to keep in place a broken school-funding model that could see up to $5.4 million cut from Australian children. He has dismissed the findings of the Gonski review, which was very strongly welcomed, right around the country, by the education community. I know this from talking to the Primary Principals Association, where principals from all three sectors—Catholic, independent and government—work together. They all told me the system is broken and that they are committed to seeing progress made on these questions. They are working across sectors to say, 'Yes, the system is broken, and we want to be part of the solutions.' But Mr Pyne has not listened to schools and parents around the country. In fact, the coalition has a plan to sack one in seven teachers, squeeze more children into classrooms and slash funding to disadvantaged schools. Mr Pyne has said that teaching quality would be his highest priority. I cannot see how that can possibly be the case, because the coalition has in fact announced that it would cut $425 million out of the Teacher Quality National Partnership. They said that in the 2010 federal election. So if that is how Christopher Pyne treats his main priority, how will he treat the rest of the education system?

I want to acknowledge the amendments moved by the Greens. These amendments would create legal uncertainty in respect of the affected parts of the bill and include in the bill matters that the government thinks are better addressed in regulations. I also note that putting these information requirements into the act, rather than leaving them to regulations, would likely increase the complexity of the act, and that is something the government does not support. Further, one of the government's key concerns is that there has been considerable buy-in from different parts of the education sector—from government schools, from non-government schools and from Catholic and independent schools—to get them to support these reforms and to get their support for a path forward and, at this stage, the government thinks these amendments would represent a threat to the goodwill that we have generated in terms of being able to move forward on these very important questions. That is why the government will not be supporting these amendments. The government also has concerns that this level of detail in the primary legislation would limit the capacity to amend the requirements to respond to the changing needs of the bill through future regulations, because it will start to create contradictions between the act and the regulations.

In closing, I want to say that we cannot let this current broken system continue. It is doing a great disservice to the nation's students. It is driving inequities in our education system and it is driving down education standards. It leaves hundreds and thousands of young Australians behind, many in government schools but also in schools in the Catholic and independent sector, who will get extra resources under these reforms, all of whom deserve the resources and support that come with this legislation.

We know, on the other hand, that Mr Christopher Pyne and Mr Tony Abbott have no alternative plan for school funding that fixes these inequities, only a plan to maintain a broken system that is doing a great disservice to our nation's children, maintaining a broken system that will see schools lose $16 billion in six years. No school will be worse off under the current model, they say. That is not true, as the current system sees many schools go backwards, especially the most needy, and that is what we aim to address in this parliament today. I commend the bills to the Senate.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Australian Education Bill 2013 and the Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. But before I do that, Madam Acting Deputy President Crossin, can I firstly just acknowledge, as you are in the chair this morning, the enormous contribution that you have made to the Senate.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is your third-last day in the Commonwealth parliament. Those of us who have worked with you on committees and have been working with you in this chamber have high regard for your professionalism, the depth of your appreciation of so many issues, the breadth of your knowledge in relation to the processes of this place and particularly, may I say, your respect for and empathy with so many communities, particularly the Indigenous community. I know that you have taken the opportunity—probably rightfully so—at times to educate me on your perspectives on that. Congratulations for your time and your contributions, and all the best following the end of this 43rd Parliament.

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

Hear, hear!

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I turn to the bills. It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on these bills, because education is an issue that I have had a lifelong passion for. In fact, it was an issue that I raised in my first speech in this place. I spoke at length about my particular personal passion in relation to education and what we provide for all those young people coming through the school system and on to tertiary education. Not only do I speak in terms of the coalition's perspective and my personal perspective on this but I would also like to be a voice for the people—I was trying to think whether I should term it as hundreds or thousands; like so many, I have been contacted by probably now thousands who are either principals or schoolteachers, and certainly parents—who have all expressed their enormous concern about these education bills. They have written to us, called and actually visited me in my electorate office. We have spent considerable time listening to the concerns of those who are caught up in the education process, whether that is as a stakeholder—that is, as a family, as parents who have children going through the system—or as those who seek to pursue a career in the education sector. So many have expressed their concerns, and it is as much for them that I speak today as their voice in expressing their concerns on these bills.

In my first speech in this place, I reflected on my parents' interest in and passion for education and how they taught me that education is the No. 1 equaliser in society. It is actually access to education and choice of education that provide an opportunity to give people a hand up in life, not a handout. That is why it is of such critical concern to us in the coalition, and it is why we have been so consistent over the years—and I refer to the former Howard government period. It is why we spent so much time and had such a priority in this area to ensure that strong education standards applied to all within Australia.

I have to say that on a personal basis I think that one of the great things that we should be considering is having a system whereby a fiscal amount, if you like, is applied and assigned to an individual child regardless of where that child is educated so that the parents themselves have the opportunity to choose which school is in the best interest of their children and, more importantly, which schools reflect the values and principles of the way in which those families wish to raise their children. But that is an argument for another day.

I will briefly reflect on my parents, though, because I think this is a great example. My brother and sister and I were the first in our family who were offered private education. We were the first in our extended family who went to private schools. Interestingly, though, the three of us did not go to the same school. My parents determined that each of us had different requirements and different needs, and they determined that different schools would bring out the best in us and suit us in very different ways. That is a very relevant example, certainly for me, of where different schools and the different principles applied at those schools supported individuals in different ways. It is the parents—only the parents—who can determine what education system best suits their own children. So any education public policy introduced or mandated by a government should be very cognisant of that fact.

It is a crying shame that, on the third last day of the 43rd Parliament, these bills are numbered 23rd and 24th of 55 bills to be guillotined. It is an absolute crying shame, as Senator Mason alluded to when he sought to suspend standing orders so that we could debate this longer. It is an absolute travesty for us all that in the House they only had two hours to look at, scrutinise and deal with these bills. We just heard from Senator Pratt. These are bills that the government themselves believe are absolutely critical to the long-term future of all Australians. Why are the government only allowing two hours in the House and less time here in the Senate for us to debate a public policy which they have proposed and which they, the government, have suggested is so important to them? Without wanting to influence those who might be listening to this broadcast and without wanting to influence those who would make their own minds up on this, I think the facts stand for themselves.

It is an absolute tragedy that the committee inquiry into this only went for three days. For something as significant and as comprehensive as this, only three days were allowed to examine the implications of the introduction of the Australian Education Bill 2013 and the Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. This is just too serious to play politics with. Unfortunately, this is yet another example of a rushed public policy, rushed politics, serving an agenda other than the one we should be critically concerned about: the future of our youth in Australia.

I also suggest that the government are being quite misleading when they keep on referring to these measures, loosely—I do say loosely—as being part of the Gonski recommendations. The one person we have not heard from since these bills have been formulated for us to consider is the esteemed David Gonski himself. He is not associating himself with these bills. What he did was undertake a very comprehensive review and make a number of recommendations, and the government have cherry-picked aspects of that review and incorporated them in these bills. It is very deceptive to suggest that this is the conclusion of all the recommendations made in the review, because that is far from the truth.

We know that because the Gonski review called for no less than $6.5 billion in new funding each and every year. That is $6½ billion in each and every year, to a total of over $39 billion. Let's put that into some sort of context. What are we looking at here? Labor has promised $9 billion by 2019, which is six years away. There is a dramatic difference between what Mr David Gonski recommended by way of an injection of funds towards the restructure of the education sector and what we see before us.

As Senator Mason commented earlier, the issue here—and this applies to absolutely every issue that the government touch—is that they think, if you throw a bucketload of cash at something and make a huge injection of cash, that will produce the best outcome for whatever area it is. It is such a typically Labor and Greens' view that the solution for absolutely everything put before us is to throw money at it. I would proffer that that is not the solution. Whether under the former Rudd government or under the current Gillard government, there is example after example where throwing good money after bad did not return good public policy. It did not come up with the outcome. We only have to go back and look at the school halls that were built across the country in a flurry. Some $14.5 billion was thrown at building new school halls.

In fact, I visited a number of schools during the construction program. One small school in a small country town in northern Victoria that had fewer than 200 students had $1 million directed to building a new edifice for the Gillard government. They said that in the history of the town they had never seen such a cash flow into their small country town—this was $1 million. If you translate that across fewer than 200 students it does not take much to work out whether or not that was an effective way to increase the education outcomes for each of those children. I have to say that the parents I met at the school on that day were highly questioning of the appropriateness of the way in which that was being delivered. They said, 'If the government wants to throw $1 million at us we are hardly going to say no to it.' The point was that there was no real belief that it was going to change the education outcomes.

That is just one example. Look at the computers in schools program. Every student would have a computer on their desk. When Prime Minister Gillard was education minister, we remember that. It changed over time. How did that improve the standards of the kids? Not one person on the other side of the chamber could attest to the fact that this program in any way demonstrably increased the education outcomes for those students. We have already seen $14.5 billion—we are talking here about $9 billion by 2019—spent in building structures with no suggestion that this has in any way improved the education outcome of a single student. If the government is serious about increasing education outcomes for all Australian students they would have had a far more comprehensive and appropriate look at the way in which they do it. History suggests that this is not going to be the case.

The federal budget impact shows that we are actually looking at a $315 million reduction in school funding over the forward estimates for the next four years. I have with me some four pages listing Victorian schools and the way they will be affected by this funding decision. They will be dramatically affected by this funding arrangement.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

I would be delighted to take the interjection I have just heard across the chamber, because I would like to ask why it is that small Catholic schools with very low funding thresholds are able to deliver higher education standards than so many other schools that have a higher and stronger funding model. There are many Catholic schools and independent schools operating on small and tight budgets that successfully come up with good education outcomes. In my mind there is one real reason for that: it is to do with teacher quality. During the recently concluded 'Teaching and learning—maximising our investment in Australian schools' Senate inquiry—and, Madam Acting Deputy President, you participated in this inquiry—we heard about the critical role of the teachers in terms of the education outcomes of the kids; it is by raising the standard of the teachers and actually rewarding them and rewarding the very good, effective and committed teachers who have the greatest impact on the students. During the inquiry you will recall a young man, a refugee, who I think was from a school in Cranbourne, Victoria, who was so concerned about marginalisation within the school that he took it upon himself, with the support of teachers, to run programs within the school. This was out of left field. It was the teachers themselves who identified the strength of what he was doing and supported him. It has made a difference to that school today.

I hate to say it, but this policy is not worth the paper it is printed on. The government is a disgrace. This is another public policy that should be tossed out the door. (Time expired)

John Madigan (Victoria, Democratic Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about the Australian Education Bill 2013. The education bill is to be commended for identifying five key areas needing reform. There is no doubt that education reform is necessary. Teaching standards need to be improved. Some students are missing out on a quality education. More opportunities must be provided for students with disabilities. The objectives are praiseworthy. But there is no consensus that the Australian Education Bill provides a solution.

This bill has caused enormous dissension in the community. It has created a division between primary and secondary schooling and tertiary education by stealing from Peter to pay Paul. The increased funding to schools is at the expense of the university sector. This has alienated both the vice-chancellors and the Tertiary Education Union.

There are still many unanswered questions in relation to primary and secondary education. I have had overwhelming representation from constituents concerned that their questions relating to the bills have not been answered by the minister, despite representation from parents, schools and organisations as significant as the Catholic Education Office. The Catholic education sector is responsible for educating 23 per cent of Australian students. It does so on 90 per cent of what is spent per capita on students in government schools. This 90 per cent comprises government funding and parental fee contribution. These schools still have questions in relation to funding under these bills. A considerable number of its schools are disadvantaged and in low-socioeconomic areas. There is clearly a need to provide additional funding to close this gap between Catholic schools and government schools. Further, there is no guarantee that government funding to Catholic schools will keep pace with the cost of educating children in government schools.

While the bills propose higher levels of funding for students with disabilities, this must be guaranteed for all students, regardless of the school that they attend. It is not clear to parents or to schools as to how these bills will assist students in Australian schools. It is not clear as to how this will occur through increasing the level of government bureaucracy. What is needed is a real improvement in teacher education so that the needs of all students can be met. Educational theory outlines many modes of learning and assessment. Despite this, focus on teaching and assessment is becoming narrower, as evidenced by NAPLAN testing, which ignores the needs of visual, manual and practical learning. Most schools have responded by narrowing their teaching to drilling students in order to maximise NAPLAN results.

Interestingly, those schools that have improved their NAPLAN performance are those that have broadened their curriculums along the lines of inquiry based learning. One of these schools is a Catholic school in a low-socioeconomic area in Ballarat. All teachers need training to identify even common learning issues such as dyslexia, which affects 10 per cent of students in schools. Teachers need to be trained in appropriate strategies to assist these students. Until this happens, many students will continue to disengage from the education system because it does not meet their needs.

The answer to improving education is more diversity and broader choices in education. One of the aims of these bills is to empower school leadership. Again, it is hard to imagine how this will occur when schools are burdened with additional bureaucracy and greater compliance measures. These bills, combined with the introduction of a national curriculum, can potentially narrow schooling and education choices. What is needed is imagination and innovation.

One way of encouraging diversity is to give families more choice in the type of education provided to their children rather than simply a system that concentrates power in the hands of the federal government. A voucher system or tax credits to parents to enable them to choose their child's school would both empower parents and promote excellence in education. The schools providing appropriate and targeted education would receive greater patronage.

The UK has moved in the direction of community involvement and community responsibility for education by the mutualisation of schools. The schools are run by stakeholders—parents, teachers and even students—who have a direct interest in the outcomes. It is early days but such innovations are showing great promise. We do not need more of the same. We do not need more bureaucracy. We do not need greater federal control of education. I will not be supporting these bills.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make some comments on the legislation before us today. The amended Australian Education Bill 2013 and related bills establish a new federal funding model formula for non-government schools. The legislation has also been amended to include different funding arrangements for government schools dependent on whether their state government has agreed to the changes. The states and territories, as we all know, have until 30 June to agree to the new school funding model. Only New South Wales, the ACT and South Australia have entered into an agreement with the federal government to date.

Under the schooling resource standard, all participating schools—and all non-government schools are deemed to be participating schools—are entitled to a base amount of funding for every student. The base amount of funding per primary student is $9,271 and per secondary student is $12,193. The SRS amount is indexed annually by three per cent.

I will confine my remarks to a shorter period of time today to leave as much time as possible for other colleagues to make contributions, given that we are being guillotined and are ceasing this debate at one o'clock. The fact that we have such a limited time—as other colleagues have said—to debate these bills is absolutely deplorable. It comes back to the fact that this government has no ability not only to run the country properly but to run the chamber and the process of parliament properly. This does an absolute disservice to particularly our families and students around this nation, who deserve to have the parliament be given the opportunity to properly scrutinise this legislation.

And it has indeed been a shambolic process. In 2012, the original Australian Education Bill was just nine pages long. It contained myriad motherhood statements. The amended legislation being rushed through the parliament is now 129 pages long. We simply cannot give this new legislation that is before us an appropriate level of scrutiny in the short amount of time available.

And it is a shambolic process. We have only three of the states lined up, as I said. They have until 30 June to agree or disagree with the federal government about whether or not they are going to sign up. Yet we see the legislation coming before the parliament today to be finalised. It is a completely shambolic process. And Western Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory still have real concerns. I understand that Tasmania has concerns about the power that is going to sit with the federal minister, and I understand that is on the record. I will make some brief comment on the position of New South Wales. My good friend the minister in New South Wales, Adrian Piccoli, has indeed signed up—in good faith, from his New South Wales perspective. But from my perspective as a federal senator I have to look at the entire nation and how this piece of legislation is going to affect all states and territories.

This is all far too late—this last-minute rush. We are talking about an incredibly and complicated new process to be applied to our schools through this piece of legislation, and this model is to begin on 1 January 2014. That is an extraordinary ask on those schools, and on those who run the schools—who, as I understand it, say that this type of process normally takes 12 to 18 months to bed down. Yet, because of the shambolic nature of this government, we are now looking at a mere few months by which this model is supposed to be in place. But look at this government's history of implementing policy. Perhaps if it had been a government—as my good colleague the shadow minister, the member for Sturt in the other place, said—that had a track record of good delivery of good policy, we might perhaps not be quite so concerned about the short time frame. But think about this government's history—and I keep using the word 'shambolic', because it is the one I find most appropriate—of policy implementation, such as the pink batts debacle, the absolute disaster of the overpriced school halls and the snap ban of the live export trade; in terms of a policy disaster, that one has to be one of the worst we have seen from this government—but that is a discussion for another day.

So on this side of the chamber we certainly do not have any confidence that this government can have this model implemented, have this policy properly run through by the due date of 1 January. Interestingly, in the Gonski report we saw that $6½ billion was supposed to go to this. Over the forward estimates, over the four years, the expectation then would be $26 billion. But what we have actually seen from this government over the forward estimates is a $325 million cut. Then we are supposed to believe that this is going to turn into some sort of river of gold—$7.8 billion—in years 5 and 6. Again, on this side of the chamber we just have no confidence in this government that they will be able to either (a) deliver the model in time or (b) deliver the funding that is indeed necessary.

And the lack of clarity that we have seen continues. There has been a lot of confusion and concern in the community. Through the Senate estimates process I have tried over a long period of time now, as has my very good colleague Senator Mason, to ascertain some detail as to how this model is going to work. And I have to say, until very recently there was very, very little information. There is now, of course, some information in the amendments—on the loadings and the relevant definitions for regional and remote schools—and also information available on the Better Schools website. But there is still a real difficulty in deciphering how the new funding system will actually operate—how it is going to translate into dollar terms for individual schools. And there is still a lot of confusion in the school sector as to what the funding changes actually mean.

In the recent budget estimates I asked where I personally could go to see the actual impact on regional schools—my specific area of interest—and was told that anyone trying to decipher the impact of the changes would have to know the school's current finances, size, location and so on and then refer to the complex amendments to the bill and apply some very confusing formulas. So it is not at all surprising that there is a pervasive belief out there in the community that there is still such a lack of clarity around this.

The Council of Catholic School Parents and the NSW Parents' Council indicated earlier in June that it is an overly complex, convoluted model that lacks transparency, that they cannot see what the school's actual funding is. The president of the NSW Parents' Council, Stephen Grieve, said:

If a doctor of mathematics cannot understand the model and what funding our children will get next year, how are parents meant to comprehend the bill?

I think that is one of the real flaws: we do not have the transparency necessary to see how this is going to operate. Unfortunately, words of comfort and surety from the government just do not cut it on this side of the chamber, because we simply do not have the confidence in this government that what they are saying will actually happen.

We also have some concerns around the new tool that is apparently coming in in 2017, around the individual parental capacity to pay. Now the minister has said that what he actually meant was the aggregate parental capacity to pay. But the legislation still says 'individual'. How is this going to play out for those parents and families out in our communities? Is this going to be a means test? And how is it going to work? We have no problem, on this side of the chamber, with improving outcomes in education for students. But we do not want to see this lack of clarity resulting in negative impacts on those families and students in the school sector—particularly, from my point of view and from that of many of my colleagues, those in the regional school sector.

Money itself is not going to solve these problems. As my very good colleague Senator Mason said earlier, a bucket of money is not going to solve this. And unfortunately this government relies all too often on a bucket of money, thinking it is going to solve a problem. Indeed, we only have to look at the NBN to see that this is a principle that this government has tried time and time again. Money itself is not going to solve these problems.

While I understand that a lot of the schools realise, as we do, that financial assistance is going to be necessary for some of this improvement, we actually need to look at and focus on things like principal autonomy, parental engagement, a strong and robust curriculum and teacher quality. If those things are not improved, no amount of money thrown into the system is going to make the slightest bit of difference, unless attached to that is the deliberative and proper assessment of how we actually improve those things for students in those schools.

I was going to go on with a number of other areas but, as I say, in deference to other colleagues who I know want to speak, I will cut my comments short. But I do have to say that I believe that there has been a real lack of consultation with and information provision to, in particular, the regional communities, in terms of this government getting out there and communicating and properly consulting with regional communities. The information that has come through to us in the Senate estimates process has been very weighted to the city areas, and that is absolutely not acceptable.

The other thing that is not acceptable is the $2.8 billion worth of cuts that the government has put in place, hitting the university sector and our students, to try and pay for this. If this government had not racked up around $256 billion worth of debt, now heading towards $370 billion, we would not be looking at the funding cuts that we are seeing in the university sector and for those students. That is simply wrong and just shows that this government has absolutely no ability to manage money. Our students should not have to be cash cows for this Labor government to pay for a policy that it wants to put in place.

On this side of the chamber, as I say, we are absolutely supportive of making sure that our students get the best opportunities they possibly can through their schooling life—particularly those students in regional schools, right across those regional areas. That is my particular focus. We will continue to support those students and families to ensure that they have better outcomes in the future.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was the Chinese philosopher Confucius who said this: 'If your plan is for one year, plant rice; if your plan is for 10 years, plant trees; if your plan is for 100 years, educate your children.' Nobody in this chamber would argue with the point on which Senator Nash concluded: that all of us have a very keen interest, obviously, in the best education for our children.

It is with great disappointment that I rise to oppose the Australian Education Bill 2013 and its associated legislation. As the deputy chair of the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee, it is a great disappointment to me that a circumstance developed that in the other place there was less than two hours debate on 70 pages of amendments associated with the legislation. It was only last week, on 18 June, that the Senate referred the bills to the committee of which I am the deputy chairman, with the need for an inquiry and a report by 20 August 2013—an entirely reasonable time. Unfortunately, that was cut short by the majority members from the Labor government, to the extent that there would then be only three days—three days!—of opportunity for parties to make a submission, which concluded on Friday, 21 June, for a report on Monday, 24 June. In other words, there was to be expenditure by state and federal governments—in other words, taxpayers—of some $100 billion over the forward estimates, and there was only three days' opportunity for people to place submissions, and no time at all for there to be a hearing or hearings held. That is the disdain in which this government holds the people and the parliament and, more particularly, this Senate.

People might say, 'Look, there've been plenty of opportunities to debate the issues over time.' But there simply has not been put before interested parties and those vitally affected by this legislation anywhere near the documentation necessary for them to become informed and to advise their own constituents. So we have had a totally and utterly limited period of time. We have had no chance to scrutinise the submissions. We have had no chance to test the witnesses. And we are now being asked to approve this legislation. This is just totally and utterly unacceptable.

I will go very briefly to some of the submissions placed in those 72 hours. The themes of the complexity of the legislation and the lack of clarity ran through nearly all of them. The Independent Schools Council of Australia said:

The timing of the passage of these pieces of legislation is critical for non-government schools, as current Commonwealth Government funding arrangements expire at the end of 2013.

That is a mere six months away. The complexity of the legislation, particularly as it related to indexation, was a matter of enormous concern, and still has not been answered. Criticism of the lack of clarity also came from state governments, the Queensland government pointing out the plethora of detailed examples of the lack of clarity, the following being just one of them:

The Bill sets out a complex set of authorities and relationships, which is compounded when overlaid with participating and non-participating status. In parts, the Bill switches between concepts of 'participating schools' and 'participating states and territories'.

And on it goes. There were also pleas that the government would release the year-by-year figures for the next three years, where Commonwealth education funding goes backwards in each state and territory; they were unaddressed.

Submissions also mentioned the lack of consultation. I will illustrate the way in which this government consults with some newspaper headlines. For example, under the headline 'Gillard to punish Gonski hold-outs' we read:

JULIA Gillard will punish recalcitrant states that refuse to sign up to the government's education reforms with lower funding for their schools.

In a Victorian paper, under the headline 'Schools face burdens irrespective of the Gonski deal,' we read:

Brighton Secondary College principal Julie Podbury said state schools already wrote plans for improvement.

So why is there the necessity for a Canberra bureaucrat or a plethora of Canberra bureaucrats? As to the Northern Territory, Prime Minister Gillard not only threatened to impose difficulties for the Northern Territory government in the education space, but also made it very clear that other funding from the federal government to the Northern Territory may be adversely affected. As to Queensland, under the headline 'Gonski gets zilch, state goes local', we read that:

THE Newman government will forge ahead with its own education reforms, refusing to allocate funds to support the commonwealth's Gonski blueprint …

This is the way in which this federal government consults. 'Private schools tucked into Gonski'—Catholic and independent schools will be locked into the Gonski funding model regardless of whether Prime Minister Julia Gillard can convince more states and territories to sign up.

I come to my own state of Western Australia, which was offered a paltry $138 million over six years to sign away its schools to federal control in Canberra at a time when the New South Wales government was offered $5 billion. When I asked in estimates how this could be, do you know what the answer was? The answer was that because, over time, failed Labor governments in New South Wales, some of them led by now Senator Bob Carr, had failed to invest in state education in New South Wales and therefore they needed extra funding to bring them up to a standard at which they should always have been. In our state of Western Australia, under Premier Barnett and premiers before him, including Labor and the Liberal coalition, there was heavy investment.

In estimates I challenged the minister about how it could be that one state could get $5 billion and the other $138 million. Prime Minister Gillard rushed over to WA and she would appear to have increased the $138 million to $900 million. We have no idea where the money is coming from, but who cares with this mob when we have $300 billion of debt and we are paying a billion dollars a month interest on the debt at the moment. It turns out that the $900 million was actually $300 million of state money. Take that away, Senator Mason, and there is $600 million left. It sounds wonderful, doesn't it? How many years was it over? Six years. Premier Barnett told us the other day that the Western Australian budget for running the state schools is $4 billion a year, and Prime Minister Gillard, in return for the states handing over control, was throwing around $600 million of money she did not have and certainly gave no indication of where it was coming from.

'Review for rebel state schools'—the list goes on. This is how this government consults with its stakeholders. Breaches in previous undertakings by the Commonwealth was evident in submissions from witnesses to this particular inquiry who could not appear at a hearing because one was not permitted. The Tasmanian government, a Labor government, submitted that the bill as drafted ignores the roles and responsibilities as agreed, providing the Commonwealth with the ability to impose prescriptive policy and operational requirements on school systems and schools, both government and non-government.

I propose to conclude on this matter, if I may, to allow others to speak, by drawing attention to an inquiry which you, Madam Acting Deputy President McKenzie, were a participant in recently: the teaching and learning inquiry of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee. I am proud to say that the report and recommendations were unanimous from everybody who participated. These were the principles that we considered were necessary to improve teaching and learning in this country. The first: active involvement by parents from the youngest age of their children. That is not a high-cost factor; it does not get a guernsey in this funding. The second: the need for school autonomy, as exhibited, for example, in Finland. What does this legislation do? It takes school autonomy away. A principal cannot employ a teacher or sack a teacher; they have to put a plan to a bureaucrat in Canberra. Where would decisions be best made for the Turkey Creek school in the Kimberley? Where would decisions best be made for the Mukinbudin Primary School in the wheat belt? Not here in Canberra. The committee rejected the concept that, by definition, low socioeconomic students must be automatically disadvantaged in their education outcomes. That is something that our committee came up with. I must say, in deference to the recommendations of Gonski and his colleagues, that was a matter that they picked up.

Other principles included: professional learning by teachers practically in the schools, day to day; and curriculum and curriculum development devolved down to the level where the principal and the staff are best equipped. Senator Mason, through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, the unfortunate thing is that, once again, an opportunity has been missed, money has been grossly wasted, and there has been a lack of consultation with the stakeholders, be they state, Catholic or independent schools, and there is a circumstance where we will not receive the outcomes. We will have growth management by Canberra and a waste of taxpayers' money.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that I share the concerns of Senator Mason and Senator Back in relation to the lack of appropriate process in the way that these bills have been rushed through and the lack of adequate debate. This is not the way to run a parliament. Respectfully, this is not the way to deal with such an important package of legislation.

There is a wonderful quote from WB Yeats that sums up how I feel about education. He said:

Education is not the filling a pail but the lighting of a fire.

My fear with this bill is that the government is too narrowly focused on filling a pail full of money rather than igniting the debate we must have about better outcomes for students. Sometimes one can lead to the other, but, without a clear policy framework and the right objectives, we will continue to fail our students and ultimately the nation.

A lot has been said about the decline in Australia's literacy and numeracy levels. There are many different arguments about how we should fix this: more tests, fewer tests, more money for students, more money for teachers—the list goes on and on. Something that is often forgotten is how we value learning and education as a nation. Governments value it because—forgive me for sounding cynical—there are votes to be won when you promise to fix a problem. Academics and commentators value it because they know its importance to our nation. And teachers and educators value it because they know what it is like to see a child or an adult gain understanding—the light that goes on when something suddenly becomes clear and it all makes sense. But do we as a nation value it? Do we value our teachers, our schools and our capacity for higher education? In my view, we do not—not enough.

In December last year the Australian Council for Educational Research released a report on the most recent international studies of student achievement. The council stated:

The study revealed that many Australian Year 4 students have substantial literacy problems, with around one-quarter of students not meeting the Intermediate benchmark – the standard generally considered in international achievement studies to be the minimally acceptable standard of proficiency.

The report went on to find that Australian students achieved a mean score of 505 in year 8 mathematics. South Korea, which was a top-performing country, achieved a mean score of 613. Further, 37 per cent of Australian students did not meet the Intermediate benchmark, 26 per cent achieved the Low international benchmark and 11 per cent were below this level.

How do we make up this lost ground? Ben Jensen, the director of the Grattan Institute's School Education Program, wrote an excellent opinion piece for the Weekend Australian earlier this year, in February, in which he called for better support and skills development for teachers, rather than more funding for schools. Jensen has approached the problem in a way that I find non-ideological and nonpartisan. I think we need to listen to voices such as his in this debate. Jensen said:

For decades, politicians and educators have argued over funding, and whether more money should go to public or private schools. As they did, children's learning was neglected. Our primary school students have the lowest literacy levels of any country in the English-speaking developed world. The performance of our secondary students is falling. The average 15-year-old maths student in Australia performs at a level two years below their counterpart in Shanghai.

Jensen goes on:

It is an appalling situation. The schools debate in Australia has always focused on money: how much and who gets what. How children learn and how to help them learn better, has been pushed aside.

It is time for a new story in Australian school education. Not whether public or private is better or deserves more funds, not whether teacher and principal performance pay, school autonomy or computers will lift the quality of our schools. Not wasting money on reducing class sizes.

None of these policies has been found to do much at all for student learning. Instead, the world's best school systems—in Finland, Ontario, Singapore and Shanghai—focus relentlessly on how to improve what happens in the classroom.

To me, that makes perfect sense. Of course schools need funding to meet their needs. But, in my view, there is no point in having an iPad for every child if their teacher does not have the skills or support to teach them to read. What is more, teachers are no longer just educators; they are adjudicators, psychologists, enforcers, philosophers, even nutritionists, sports coaches and career counsellors.

Our expectations of what teachers should do have gone far beyond 'the three Rs'. Instead, they are expected to coach and support children in all facets of life during their time at school. But, too often, what they spend their time doing is everything but teaching basic literacy and numeracy skills. The ever-growing gap between the haves and have-nots in Australia means that many children are simply slipping through the cracks. Teachers have far too little support when it comes to dealing with the complex problems children often bring with them to school, and that lack of support means other children sometimes just do not get a look in.

Of course I support a better and fairer funding model for our schools. But if it is not linked to meaningful outcomes, and it does not teach more kids to read and add up, then this policy, in itself, will not work. It is not a simple equation. Money in does not equal education out. That is why the focus, after this bill is passed, must be on making sure that Australian kids not only do not slip further behind internationally but also are given a chance to reach their full potential.

Finally, Madam Acting Deputy President, often a work of fiction has a ring of truth to it, and I know you are a fan of this particular program. I would like to finish off with a quote from Sam Seaborn of Aaron Sorkin's The West Wing. Justifying his position on education funding, he said:

…education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes, we need gigantic, monumental changes. Schools should be palaces. The competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be making six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge to its citizens, just like national defense. That's my position. I just haven't figured out how to do it yet.

Seguing from The West Wing to what we are dealing with here, I am not convinced, sadly, that this bill has figured out how to do it either. But I hope this legislation can be used as a building block to achieve the reforms every Australian child deserves.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not want to spend too much time, in the very limited time we have, making the point that, yet again, there is legislation being rushed through here. But, perhaps quoting from the Premier of Queensland, the Hon. Campbell Newman, in a submission he made to the education, employment and workplace relations committee inquiry, will suffice to give people the details of how appalling the inquiry into this bill has been. I quote from the letter, which says: 'The fact that your committee received a reference for an inquiry on 19 June requiring submissions by 21 June 2013 and reporting by 24 June indicates their contempt for the business of government and of the Australian parliament by the federal government.' It is impossible to disagree with that. I think it succinctly puts the very poor process that we have in place, and we continue to have poor processes all over the place in terms of this legislation.

I am particularly interested in the effect of this legislation on students with disability. As an unintended consequence, this legislation may be causing a preference for special schools over mainstream schools. There is no explanation anywhere for why the loading for students with a disability in special schools should be 20 per cent higher than the loading for students with a disability in mainstream schools. The suggestion seems to be that this is a temporary loading for special schools, but this is not spelt out, and a number of people who submitted in the lightning-fast time they had to address this inquiry were not confident that this was the case. But, even so, why is it there?

There is nothing specific in the bill or in the regulation that creates any concrete expectations that education systems will be able to delivery fully on the national disability standards, or that Australia's obligations as a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities or the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child will be met. It would seem quite relevant to me, and it was certainly a position put by Children with Disability Australia that, at the very minimum, the obligations of this government to meet those standards should be referenced somewhere in the bill.

We have the situation where the loadings appear to be set up in such a way as to encourage short-termism and encourage lack of resources in the sector of education for students with a disability. There is a high degree of difficulty associated with the development of a disability loading, and there is a lot yet to be finalised and introduced. There is no clarity around the reform package, but there is also no clarity around how it will apply to students with a disability. Of course, the odds of us getting a successful outcome on this are very low. I would have thought that the government could have acknowledged—in what has been referred to as the rhetoric and aspiration in this document—that, as Senator Xenophon was pointing out earlier, not just the academic performance of our schools across the board as something to be ashamed of, but our treatment of children with disability is something to be particularly ashamed of.

Children with Disability Australia described it as a national disgrace. They pointed out that 63 per cent of school children with a disability experience difficulty fitting in at school, 29.6 per cent of people between 15 and 64 with a disability completed year 12 compared to 49.3 per cent of people without a disability—that is almost half. They added that 12.7 per cent of people with a disability have a bachelor's degree or higher, and for people without a disability that figure is 19.7 per cent. Around 15 per cent of Australia's students require additional assistance, but only five per cent receive funded support. Clearly, improving these measures over time is complex, but getting a start on it is urgent. Students with disability have been marginalised in our system for long enough, and it beggars belief that, in 2013, this government would think that a system that somehow preferences special schools over students with disability in mainstream schools is a good thing. It is just unbelievable.

As I said, the loading system has been set up in such a way that it would appear to disadvantage mainstream schools which make the effort to follow the law and do their job of accepting students with a disability. The funding is on a per-student basis. There is no requirement for how the funding would be distributed within systems, and the loading appears to be payable for the year's enrolment that you have now. Whilst extending the national partnership agreement for More Support for Students with Disabilities is a start, it does not help with the issue of stop-start funding and no funding to improve the resources or the learning. It is just funding per student per year with nothing into the future. It is not endemic, it is not recurrent and it is not permanent. It is an unusual and difficult mess. I would urge the government to keep in mind that we must not end up with a system that has the perverse effect of giving special schools higher funding than mainstream schools that have students with a disability.

I would like to conclude my remarks so that others can speak by pointing out another comment from the Queensland Premier, the Hon. Campbell Newman, who makes the point that, I think, Ms Gillard continues to forget. The Queensland government is the owner and manager of state schools and is the regulator of non-state schools and provides nearly 90 per cent of government funding for state schools. The Queensland government aims to remove needless red tape and regulation in general and will not support the federal government adding even more regulation. I have no idea why Ms Gillard would be surprised that the majority of states have not signed up to her 'con-ski' reform, as has been referred to by the shadow education minister, Christopher Pyne. It is disappointing that this government have gone about it in this way. I would urge them to have a look at the way they are intending to fund provisions for disadvantaged students and for students with a disability and to make sure that, if this were to occur, there would be no adverse consequences.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Education Bill 2013, the related bill, and the 70-odd amendments. I think it is a record, and I would appreciate somebody telling me whether it is, but it is one of many records for this government. The thematic approach we have heard this morning from the speakers in this debate is one of waste, lack of consultation and disregard for good governance and for good parliamentary process. It is a thematic line that this Gillard government and the Rudd government seem to have lived by and will die by.

In its politicised DNA, partisan to the end, the Gillard government is using education policy to divide. As a former educator I am greatly disappointed to be standing here now, after work has been done on a needs based model to ensure that education right across our nation is of a high standard and quality, with state pitted again state, system against system, in a bidding war.

The Prime Minister's approach to premiers has just beggared belief throughout this. We have heard some representations about that here today in the states' house. Tasmania is going through a grab for cash. I am sure at the ALP state conference on the weekend there will be the wrapped-up-in-a-box signature that everyone is looking for, but that will not happen before the Premier of Tasmania has sought to ensure that it will not lose the $105 million of extra GST funds it already receives for education.

In media reports there were comments earlier from the Northern Territory about how the Prime Minister is approaching a co-operative and supportive conversation about something of such national significance as a 'once-in-a-generation change to our education system'. She has asked for a response by the NT and has warned that funding under the national partnership agreement may be reconsidered if the Territory government does not cooperate. Federal education minister, Peter Garrett, says that the Territory government is playing a dangerous game by refusing to cooperate in negotiations.

My home state of Victoria has been in the media raising concerns that it has had with this negotiation. I use the term 'negotiation' lightly because it implies a conversation. Minister Dixon wrote to the Commonwealth at the start of this month asking to hold joint negotiations. Similarly, there have been concerns raised in the media, from Victoria's perspective, about constitutional issues with the bill before us. We know—it has been mentioned before—that until a couple of weeks ago this was just an aspirational piece of paper that nobody who cares about the future of our nation and the quality of education being delivered to our young people right across this nation could disagree with. Yet, as always, the devil is in the detail—and we have the devil before us today. The constitutional issues were raised by numerous states including, earlier this week in Tasmania, by Premier Giddings.

There are concerns about increased Commonwealth policy oversight of state schools through the National Plan for School Improvement. This is yet another attempt by the Gillard government to grab power from the states and override the states' constitutional obligation to be in control of what happens on the ground within their own jurisdictions when it comes to education.

Haste has meant that none of these issues has been able to be examined and considered by the Senate and our systems. The Australian people expect us to be thorough in this place on their behalf; not to spend their money—$100 billion—without scrutiny. That is exactly why every single one of us is in this chamber. We are here not just to govern but also, on behalf of the Australian people, to consider the devil in the detail, to come to some conclusions and to proceed from there. But this government is careless with our democracy.

Issues were raised. As has been mentioned, I was part of the inquiry into the aspirational four-page document and the much more detailed 129-page document, with its 70-odd amendments—the three-day inquiry, as Senator Back and I like to call it. There was no opportunity to seek clarification on written submissions and to delve further into the detail that stakeholders had raised.

I would like to counter some of the claims that Senator Pratt made in her commentary on regional schools in WA. She said that if the Nationals were serious about standing up for kids attending schools in regional areas then they would be backing this bill. That is exactly why you have to look at the detail, Senator Pratt. When you look at the mechanism that is being used to determine the loading for location under this model you find that it is the ARIA model. That is fine if you are in a regional school in WA but if you are in a regional school in Victoria that has a different meaning and there is a different understanding of it. Under the ARIA model, as we discovered in estimates, relative to regional schools in WA, Victorian regional schools will be worse off. So check the Hansard on that one and get back to me. Unfortunately, in two minutes the time for debate will be over so we will not be able to hear the response from the government on that.

So this debate has been a farce and reduced to emotive slogans that even the owner of the name seems not to back, as these bills—and, more importantly, the negotiated reality—have skewed the report from David Gonski, which I think was delivered in December 2011. So, this is not a new conversation. Whilst we have had 70 amendments, with the devil in their detail, before us for a couple of weeks, we have been talking about this for 2½ years.

Government Senator:

A government senator interjecting—

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you may say, 'Exactly!' but then you are expecting stakeholders and states to back the slogans without being able to go through the detail. It is not an appropriate way to govern and it is not a once-in-a-generation reform.

Finally, I would like to reject outright any aspersions that the coalition does not back, as the birth right of every single citizen of this nation, the right to a quality education, private or public. For people across the way to assume that, because we want to scrutinise this—because state governments that are governed by parties that are on our side of politics are not rushing to sign up, because we have some questions we want to prosecute, because we do not want potentially to throw $100 billion away, because we want to get right—we do not think it is the birthright of every young Australian to receive a quality education, is offensive in the extreme.

Those of us on this side of the chamber know that, of the million young people that attend school in this country outside metropolitan cities, 660,000 attend state schools. So how can we back our communities without backing quality education in the regions in state schools that are focused on student outcomes? That, again brings me to the objectives in part 3(1)(i). As an educator I have real issues with a quality education being determined by a PISA result. That concern is actually shared by the AEU and the IEU, and I suggest you check out their quotes in our report to this bill. A quality education cannot simply be measured by statistics. The top five, by 2025—what a ridiculous measure to ascertain the quality of our education and—

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

Order! The time allotted for the consideration of these bills has expired. The question is that the amendment on sheet 7404 moved by Senator Mason be agreed to.

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

In respect of the Australian Education Bill 2013, the question is that the amendment on sheet 7429 circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.

At the end of the motion, add "but the Senate notes that:

  (a) the bill is an important step towards establishing an enduring schools funding model, where public money is equitabl y provided to schools according to need, to ensure a universally accessible school education system;

  (b) needs-based funding is necessary to ensure public schools are funded to provide a world-class education to any student regardless of their background;

  (c) a genuine needs-based funding model would ensure all resources of a school are taken into account in determining need; and

  (d) the Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling concluded that an independent and expert national schools resourcing body should determine the applicable schooling resource standards."

Question negatived.

The question now is that these bills be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

In respect of the Australian Education Bill 2013, the question is that amendment (1) on sheet 7410 and amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7409, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.

(1) Clause 77, page 78 (after line 28), after paragraph (2)(e), insert:

  (ea) the approved authority complies, and ensures each school complies, with relevant anti-discrimination laws of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, and does not rely upon sections 37 or 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to exempt discriminatory practices from such law;

(1) Page 92 (after line 9), at the end of Part 6, add:

Part 6A—Accountability for approved authorities and bodies

96A Report about financial assistance and financial operations

(1) An approved authority, block grant authority or non-government representative body for a school must give the Secretary a report for each year that includes the following:

  (a) the total amount of financial assistance paid to the authority or body, and allocated to the school, for the year in accordance with the Act;

  (b) for an approved authority—the total amount mentioned in paragraph (a) broken down into the school's base amount, and loadings as referred to in any of paragraphs 35(a) to (f), for the year;

  (c) in any case—a statement by the board (however described) of the authority or body about how the financial assistance paid in accordance with the Act was used, or is intended to be used, by the authority or body, and the school;

  (d) a statement by the board (however described) of the authority about whether the authority or body, and the school, has in place satisfactory internal accounting systems, controls and procedures for records kept by the authority in compliance with section 34;

(e) a statement by the board (however described) of the authority or body about the financial operations (including the financial viability and funding sources) of the authority or body and the school, and includes the following:

     (i) recurrent income and expenditure;

     (ii) capital income and expenditure;

     (iii) trading activities;

     (iv) loans for recurrent or capital purposes;

     (v) assets and liabilities;

     (vi) bequests;

     (vi) any other financial information required by the Minister;

     (vii) for approved authorities—refundable enrolment deposits.

(2) The report must:

  (a) identify any records kept by the authority or body in compliance with section 34; and

  (b) include a copy of any financial statement prepared in compliance with section 35; and

(c) include a copy of any audit document prepared in compliance with section 35.

(3) The report must not include any information that would identify a donor as a funding source of the school.

(4) The report must be given to the Minister no later than a day or days (if any) determined by the Minister.

96B Public information about financial assistance

(1) For the purposes of paragraphs 85(2)(c) and 93(2)(d), a non-government representative body for a non-government school must publish the following information each year:

  (a) the amount of financial assistance (if any) provided in the year under Division 4 of Part 5 (funding for non-government representative bodies) and the application of that financial assistance;

  (b) information about the way a school applies to be allocated financial assistance in relation to capital expenditure (as the case requires);

(d) how decisions of the authority or body to allocate financial assistance are reviewed.

(2) The information mentioned in subsection (1) is the minimum information required, and this section does not prevent body from making other information publicly available.

(3) The body must:

  (a) make the information publicly available on the internet; and

  (b) make arrangements to provide the information, on request, to a person who is responsible for a student and is unable to access the internet.

Note: The authority or body may have obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 in providing information.

(4) For the purpose of paragraph 93(2)(b), a non-government representative body for a school must spend, or commit to spend, financial assistance that is payable to the body under Division 4 of Part 5 (funding for non-government representative bodies) for the purpose of supporting school education.

(2) Page 92 (after line 9), at the end of Part 6, add:

96C Further review of operation of amendments

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be undertaken of the operation of the issues provided for in this Act.

(2) The Minister must appoint at least 3 people with expert knowledge in the field of education to undertake the independent review.

(3) The review must consider at least the following matters:

  (a) the model for providing financial assistance to States and Territories as provided for in this Act; and

  (b) the effectiveness of the model for providing financial assistance to States and Territories as measured against the principles of needs based funding; and

  (c) any other related matter that the Minister specifies.

(4) The review must be undertaken during the period 1 July 2018 to 30 April 2019.

(5) The person who undertakes the review must give the Minister a written report of the review by 30 June 2019.

(6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving it.

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had understood that they were going to be moved separately.

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

Not that I know of.

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In that case, I would seek to have a division on them.

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

You want to divide on the outcome?

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

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

I will put the vote again. The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 7410 and amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7409, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.