Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am in continuation on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2014, Mr President. I just felt that as I finished in the middle of a sentence it would be appropriate to come back and wrap it up, just for the history!

What I was saying last night about this bill was that, of course, this side of the parliament is supporting the bill. It raises important issues about support for Indigenous students in boarding schools. It also talks about the incredibly important element of providing effective support for students with disabilities and it talks about maintaining discussion so that there can be effective discussion about what happens in this area.

As I was saying last night: despite efforts from people on the other side there has never been any doubt about our position on this bill. What we have said consistently, though, is that we wish that the bill did not have to be discussed. If, in fact, the promises that were made, not just to us but to the community, around the Gonski reforms were actually maintained by the government of the day there would be no need to be discussing this bill. Each of the elements that are the core elements of this bill were part of the agreed Gonski process. There was a clear understanding around the issues of Indigenous education and boarding school support. There was an acknowledgement of the special needs for people with disabilities and the need to ensure that that was actually tied down so that the appropriate support would be identified, resourced and implemented.

As I was saying last night, a practical issue—an issue that actually did take sensitive negotiations over a period of time—was the implementation of school improvement plans. This was actually a practical aspect of making sure that across the board—across all elements of schooling and across state borders—there would be an agreed process. One of the ideas was—and we said it consistently through our process in education—that it does not matter what kind of school you go to and it does not matter where you live; you should be confident that you will have an effective, a responsive and a personal education that gave you options. That was the basis of the Gonski process. I know I should be talking about 'Better Schools' but I think Professor Gonski is now going to be in history as linked to these school reforms! So just for the sake of process I will continue using that term.

There is no doubt about our position. We continue to raise our concerns. We continue to hope that many of the things that were negotiated through those many years of discussions—with considerable difficulty in some cases—will be implemented and that through the ongoing process of funding, not just in the first four years but in the following years of a long-term investment in the nation, that the outcomes will be achieved; that the effort and hope that went into the development of the education plan will be fulfilled and that we will have the kinds of adaptations that are in this bill as a matter of course.

So we support the bill. We regret that we had to be doing this process, but there has never been any doubt that we would put it in danger. It has been said that we were somehow 'endangering the future' by not supporting it. That was never a point, and I hope that will be understood when we vote on the process.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Palmer United Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Higher Education Support Amendment (Savings and Other Measures) Bill 2013. Before I describe the purpose of this legislation I will make this general comment about relevance. Members of the Australian Defence Force have children who are participating in higher education courses or aspire to participate in higher education courses. This debate is relevant to them on two important levels. Now that it is official that they will have less income and entitlements—thanks to this Liberal government—any additional cost or lost opportunity to save on higher education expenses is very important and relevant to them. They know that if my 'vote no' campaign against government legislation in this Senate succeeds in shaming this government into offering a fair pay for our military then our ADF families will have more funds to invest in their children's higher education.

Therefore, whether I directly speak to provisions of this legislation or I speak to the Liberal betrayal of the ADF's pay and entitlements, I consider that I am being relevant to this legislation and respecting the standing orders of this Senate. I will be very disappointed if any member of this place, in order to gag me and silence the voices of women and men in the ADF in this Senate, claims that I am not being relevant to provisions of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Savings and Other Measures) Bill 2013.

The purpose of the bill is to amend legislation—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Lambie, resume your seat.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I understand the point that Senator Lambie is trying to make, but the bill, as I understand it, which the Senate is currently addressing is the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2014.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed you are right. The Senate is considering the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2014. Senator Lambie, I think you were addressing a higher education bill. Is that correct? I would ask you to refer to the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2014.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Palmer United Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry. The purpose of the bill is to amend legislation in order to remove the Higher Education Loan Program upfront payment discount of 10 per cent for payments of $500 on loan debts by students.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, I am sorry to interrupt you again, but I am advised that that is not the purpose of this bill. Perhaps you may have the wrong brief.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Palmer United Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Lambie.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a privilege to rise to speak once again on that most important matter for the Australian population: the education of our nation and the investment in the education of our nation. In particular, I am speaking to the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2014. The reality is that, if the government had just kept its promise to the Australian people to honour the Gonski arrangements, we would not have to be here giving this bill its consideration today.

I want to do a potted history of how we have arrived at this point. If we go to 6 September, that fateful day, the day before the last federal election, there was a profound commitment made by the man who would be the Australian Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, who said there would be 'no cuts to education'. Let me say it again. There was a commitment to the Australian people on national television on 6 September, the day before the federal election: 'no cuts to education'. On 7 September there was a vote, and people were entitled, in good faith, to believe that the now Prime Minister actually meant what he said. But, sadly, it was not very long afterwards that things changed.

People might remember that after the election in September there was quite a period of quiet while the government went away and prepared themselves to come to this place and to the other place, and that was as late as November. It is hard to imagine that, between September and November, the whole nature of Australian education changed to a point that it required the Prime Minister to make a statement—an announcement, in fact—as early as 25 November, announcing that they could not go ahead with the Gonski funding arrangements.

If we look at some of the language that was used to lull the Australian people into a sense that the Gonski funding—which they increasingly understood—meant that funding was going to go to every school and to those children who needed additional funding and support to overcome disadvantage, learn and become the best learners that they could be, we can forgive the Australian people for thinking that they were going to get that policy. As he entered polling booths on election day, the now minister, Minister Pyne, said that Liberals 'will match' Labor's school funding 'dollar for dollar'. On 6 September, the now Prime Minister said that there would be 'no cuts to education'. On 7 September, with bald-faced shamelessness, the member for Sturt was going into booths saying that Liberals would match Labor's school funding dollar for dollar. He said on 30 August:

We are committed to the student resource standard. Of course we are. We're committed to this new school funding model …

On 29 August, he said:

We have agreed to the government's school funding model …

And I think perhaps the most disgraceful of all—because, clearly, to make a change as early as November he must have had some plan in his head—is that, when the words came out of the member for Sturt's mouth, he said:

… you can vote Liberal or Labor and you'll get exactly the same amount of funding for your school …

He could not have been more wrong, more deceptive, if he had tried. There is a long, long distance between the journey that Labor took in that last election, the last parliament, to deliver needs based funding, to develop and negotiate a model where funding for education needs was going to those who most need it—sector-blind funding.

The reason we are in here today debating this amendment to the Australian Education Amendment Bill is the announcement on 25 November that, despite all that rhetoric, all those promises, all those deceptions as they appear now, this government said on 25 November they could not go ahead with the Gonski funding arrangements.

Not so very long after becoming a senator for New South Wales I came to this parliament on 13 November, and at that stage I did still have some small element of hope that the commitment to the Gonski funding was so public, so clear and so often repeated that the government might just feel it had to honour its word to children, to young teenagers, to every parent and every teacher who believed them. But I did have my fears; and, in the space between 13 November, when I took my place here, and 4 December, when I gave my speech, indicated in that speech my grave concern about what might happen.

I want to return if I can to the issues that are before us right now with this amendment. In the period between the election and now, with this incredible backflip and the removal of $30 billion for education funding by this government, we have seen a whole lot of programs, a whole lot of funding that is required to make the system function and to get the education out to our young people, under threat. Let's be clear, because I understand there has been some attempt by those opposite at, dare I say, more confusion: the government requires this piece of legislation now to be passed because we need to facilitate a payment of around $6.8 million to support boarding schools in the next year, 2014-15. Labor is happy to support these 50 Indigenous boarders from remote communities or where more than 50 per cent of boarders are Indigenous and come from remove communities. Of course that is not going to solve all the problems of disadvantage that we see evidence in the results that we have around our Indigenous students, but Labor is happy to support this amendment which will allow money to flow to give those students some certainty about the educational future that they have a right to believe will continue, some certainty about an educational future that they and their parents and teachers believed might be improved and met by a government that committed on 6 September and on multiple occasions prior to that and even for a short period afterwards to adequate funding.

Despairing as I am of the wholesale destruction of the needs based funding that this government is undertaking, I am delighted to stand to support the certainty for these students who require it. The Australian Labor Party will be supporting this amendment.

But there is a big difference in what we believe about education and what those opposite believe about education. We have senators from this place constantly saying it is not about the money and we just have to get better teachers in there. I have heard it repeated over and over. Not only is it an insult to the amazing teachers out there who do wonderful work; but parents know they are there and when they get a quality teacher. They constantly say it is not about the money and that the Australian education sector can actually survive with less money than it currently has, that the Australian education sector can manage without the Gonski reforms. That is really what they believe. That is what they say they believe. I have already, hopefully, made the case pretty clearly that what they say should never be believed, because there is a massive gap between what they tell you before you vote and what they do after you give them that opportunity. I think it is very telling that, while those opposite bleat and whine about investing in Australia's young people through school funding and education, nearly every single one of them is paying an awful lot of money or paid an awful lot of money for their own children to get a good education. Sadly, that is the reality that has been forced upon many parents in this country, because they do know that money invested in education bears great fruit.

The great shame is that individuals in this country have to invest so much in their own children because our public education system is in such a state of decay and underfunding that it needed a wholesale reform. That is what the Gonski review was doing.

Having gone around the country and found out what was happening in our schools, the tales of the Gonski review panellists going into our public schools and seeing for the first time firsthand the degraded situation in which many students were learning, seeing the situation where children were coming to school and the resources they need were not available for them, the Gonski panellists were touched in their hearts to see that Australia's whole education system needed massive change. It needed the money to go with it to make that change possible.

They found where the greatest disadvantage was. They saw it in six places where we need to put the money where the needs are. Those six areas that Gonski alerted us to, documented for us and proved in his documentation include small schools, where there is a different need from your average school in the main street of a city suburb. Small schools need a higher level of resourcing to give the kids there a chance. Remote schools need a higher level of resourcing to give the kids there a chance. Schools with large numbers of Indigenous students need more resources to give the kids there a chance. Schools with students with low English capacity need more resources to give those kids a chance. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds need more resources to give them a chance. Students with disabilities need more resources to give them a chance.

Labor believes that each of those groups, born into this country, have the right to go to school and get an education where they are adequately resourced to do the learning that will allow them to be the best Australian they can be. Gonski once and for all proved to us as a nation that we need to change funding. We need to make sure we have a needs based program where money goes to those who need it most.

The government understood that this appealed to Australians' sense of egalitarianism. We believe that, if a child is Indigenous and is born in the country and goes to a small school, they as an Australian have equal rights to those who are born into privilege. We believe that. That is why the Australian people decided that they would support the Gonski reforms. That is why, in the most disingenuous, sneaky, tricky and exploitative way, Minister Pyne tried to create the impression that the government were going to honour the Gonski reforms.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. These imputations and improper reflections on, in this case, a minister of the other house should be considered highly disorderly, according to the standing orders. I would ask they be withdrawn.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I hear the point of order that has been put forward, but this is a place where there has always been 'robust' debate. I think it is something all senators take into account. I do not believe in this case, having carefully listened to Senator O'Neill, that she has crossed the line that has been pointed out by the senator across the way.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan, I have an acute ear for offence in this chamber, and nothing I have heard thus far has contravened the standing orders.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Acting Deputy President. I know it must have been painful for you to say that; I appreciate your generous ruling!

I will just continue to state that that we as a Labor Party are in this chamber today supporting an amendment to a piece of legislation to make sure that some of the money—they have ripped $30 billion out—that is necessary for Indigenous students in remote settings to be able to access education goes to those students and the schools that are going to look after them.

The other element of what we are doing here today is that we are attempting to support students who have a disability in independent special schools. If we do not support this amendment, the money that they need will not get to them. The reason it will not go to them is that as soon as this government got into power they turned their backs on the commitment to the Gonski funding mechanism. In their budget, they showed us exactly why they did that. It was because they could see a saving of $30 billion. That is what they pulled out of education.

Today we are here cleaning up some of the mess of the Gonski walkaway by this government. But there is so much more that needs to be done. This is a government that committed to the first four years of Gonski. But it is in years five and six when we see the real commitment and change and the increase in funding that is necessary to transform Australian education funding into a genuine needs based funding structure.

A baby that is born today cannot choose its parents. It cannot choose what postcode it has. In the Australia I was born into and grew up in, I experienced the opportunity to get a great education. I think it is the right of every child that is born. It is not their responsibility to choose a good postcode. It is not their responsibility to choose the right school. It is their responsibility to go to school and do the best they can but in a context where they are provided with the right tools for their learning.

In my opening speech to this Senate I made some comments about the funding models. I want to revisit parts of those. I said then that money is part of the answer. So many of the contributions from those opposite would lead us to believe that money is not an essential ingredient in the provision of good schooling. Money is part of the answer. We must all get that here. Everyone else gets it. Every parent, every teacher and every business person knows that money is always part of the answer. Why? You cannot pay for more, better qualified and equipped teachers if you do not have the money. You cannot offer a level of professional salary for teachers if you do not provide adequate money as a reward for them. You cannot pay for professional development to keep teachers up to date or for learning resources. It is terrible to be in a school and see a wonderful professional teacher—a teacher who can teach reading to a brilliant group of young first graders and, without NAPLAN, determine who needs funding—find out that they cannot get funding for a reading recovery program. They might have five kids and only be able to help two of them.

That is why we are in the mess that we are in in terms of our current status in international testing. The PISA report, released on the very day that I gave this speech, indicated that, in the areas that are measured in international tests, Asian countries—like China, Singapore, Korea and Japan—are pulling ahead of Australian students in maths and reading. Our students' performances as learners in these national tests are in decline, especially our girls, our Indigenous kids and young people who have been born into a family with a low socioeconomic status. Australian students from wealthy backgrounds show a difference of about two and a half to three years of school, compared to students from the lower socioeconomic group.

Today, while we fix up a mess of this very bad government's making, we are only doing a tiny bit of the work that needs to be done in implementing the Gonski funding model. We need to watch this government very closely, because in this area of policy education they have revealed every single day since their walk away on 25 November that they have no commitment to equity, excellence and education.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all the speakers on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2014 for their contributions to the debate. I would like to take this opportunity to put some facts on the record.

The coalition government is of course absolutely committed to supporting the delivery of quality schooling, and to providing funding and regulatory certainty for all Australian schools. We are committed to making sure every Australian child has the opportunity to reach their potential through a great education. In government, we have invested a record $64.5 billion over four years in schooling. This includes the $1.2 billion this government restored for schools in Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory when we came to office in 2013.

We were very clear in the lead-up to the 2013 federal election, including in our Students First policy, that we would maintain the funding arrangements enacted by the 43rd Parliament for the four years from 2014 to 2017. We have kept this commitment through the delivery of funding that is needs-based, and in fact we have exceeded our election commitment by reinstating $1.2 billion that the previous government removed from schools in Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory.

This bill enables additional targeted support for schools, so that we can provide the much-needed services to support Indigenous boarding school students. This money was provided in the budget by the Abbott government in response to a shortfall not addressed by the previous government. The bill creates a new mechanism to make payments to schools in prescribed circumstances. The supporting regulations will prescribe the specific Indigenous boarding circumstances that will attract the funding support and the matters the minister is to have regard to in making payments. Regulations for prescribed circumstances will be subject to review and disallowance by the parliament.

The Indigenous Boarding Initiative, announced as part of the 2014-15 budget, will provide funding support of $6.8 million in 2014 for non-government schools with more than 50 Indigenous boarding students from remote or very remote areas, or where 50 per cent or more of their boarding students are Indigenous and from remote or very remote areas. This additional funding will assist non-government boarding schools to provide these students with a high quality education and educational support.

We are providing more funding for students with disabilities than ever before, including an extra $100 million in the funding loading for students next year. As part of this, the bill provides funding certainty for certain independent special schools and special assistance schools that would otherwise see their funding reduced to the schooling resource standard from 2015. This was a significant oversight from the 43rd Parliament that would have seen more than $2.4 million removed from these schools. This bill restores these funds, and these schools will now transition towards the schooling resource standard consistent with other schools. The bill corrects the location loading for schools to ensure the proper identification of inner regional schools, and inserts the final 2014 amount for capital funding for block grant authorities.

While we negotiate with states and territories and the non-government schools sector on the command and control aspects of the act, the bill amends the Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2013 to extend to 1 January 2016, or a later date determined by the minister by legislative instrument, the commencement of school improvement planning requirements under the act. This is to provide regulatory certainty to schools while consultations with stakeholders occur in relation to possible adjustments to this requirement.

This bill provides additional funding support for remote Indigenous students, prevents funding reductions for schools catering to students with a disability, delivers regulatory certainty and improves the overall operation of the act. Taking action to address these will strengthen the legislative framework that underpins the Australian government's significant investment in schools and contributes to improving the quality of school education in Australia.

I would also say in closing that the good name of the Chancellor or the University of New South Wales, David Gonski, was invoked repeatedly by people in the chamber in earlier debate and again today. In relation to some of Mr Gonski's observations concerning education, it will be interesting to see how those opposite deal with this quote:

I think that the government are correct in this—

The deregulation of university fees—

and I think that there is a real chance that the deregulation of fees — rather than making universities richer and so on — that they could produce further monies from doing that to be ploughed back to make them even greater … To improve the student experience, have higher teacher-student ratios, etc.

Those are the words of Mr Gonski, the Chancellor of UNSW, much vaunted, much held up by those opposite as an expert in Australian education. It will be interesting to see which lines those opposite draw on that particular matter.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.