Does any senator wish to have the question put on any of those proposals? There being none we will proceed to business.
This Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 bill moves away from the fundamental objective that Labor enshrined in the legislation that:
All students in all schools are entitled to an excellent education, allowing each student to reach his or her full potential so that he or she can succeed, achieve his or her aspirations, and contribute fully to his or her community, now and in the future.
Labor opposes both the principles and the practical effect of this legislation, which has continued to unravel every day that it has been subject to public scrutiny. The bill is fundamentally unfair to Australian children, and, consequently, I move:
That the Senate notes that this bill:
(a) would result in a $22.3 billion cut from Australian schools compared with the existing arrangements;
(b) removes extra funding agreed with states and territories for 2018 and 2019 which would have been brought under resourced schools to their fair funding level;
(c) locks in sector-specific payments of 80 per cent of student resource standard for non-government schools and just 20 per cent for government schools, the very opposite of a sector-lined model;
(d) sees the Commonwealth government abandon all responsibility for ensuring that Australian students reach, at a minimum, 95 per cent of the schooling resource standard;
(e) reduces funding to some wealthy overfunded schools, which Labor supports, but it also increases funding for other overfunded schools while cutting funding to some of our most vulnerable school students;
(f) would particularly hurt public schools, which receive less than 50 per cent of funding under the government's proposal compared to 80 per cent of the extra funding in Labor's school funding plan—
(g) results in only one in seven public schools reaching their fair funding level after 10 years.
Let me repeat that point (f), because that is the point that seems to be lost when commentators suggest that the NERA, the National Education Reform Agreement, is dead. What the act and that agreement delivered was 80 per cent of extra funding for public schools, which this proposal brings down to just 50 per cent. I had prepared a traditional opposition second reading speech to present when we commenced consideration of this bill. But, I have to say, where we are now and where we are today is a complete and utter farce. Reading the commentary, reading the media, listening to the minister's statements leaves the opposition in the position now that there is simply no point in reflecting on the substantive provisions in the bill, because we do not know what this bill will turn into. The government has not been clear about what it is we are dealing with here now. Today, in the situation where we are in now, as the government engages in further negotiations, possibly with senators who are not fully appraised of the impact of the proposals that the government is putting to them, is just a short part, a small part of that picture.
So let me revisit the week before the budget, when the government first put these proposals into the public realm. Actually, let me take one step further back from there. Let me take you back to the ministerial council meeting ahead of that. This minister turned up to the ministers' council and suggested to them, on the basis of two case studies, that he needed to engage in what I would call a radical market experiment. That is what this government is doing in moving away from the core principle of the Gonski report. Senators might recall that I mentioned that core principle when I quoted a speech from David Gonski yesterday but let me remind you again today. This was the speech of David Gonski on 21 May 2014. He said:
Lost in the discussion for more money were the central tenets of our review. We advocated:-
A. Funding to be unified i.e. given by state and federal governments to the different sectors together rather than states substantially only funding their school system and the bulk of Commonwealth funding being as a consequence paid to independent and faith-based schools.
Embedded in this bill at 80 per cent. This was David Gonski's review's central—capital A—tenet, and this is what this bill moves away from. As I have said in my proposed second reading amendment, the consequences of that, the impact of that, is that what was planned to be 80 per cent of additional funding going to public schools will now—and remember it is less additional funding—be only 50 per cent of additional funding going to public schools.
But let me remind the Senate where we were before the Abbott government failed to proceed with the Gonski reform agenda. We had a consensus. We had public education—non-government education; both Catholic and independent, together. We had settled the school funding wars. But what has happened here now is those wars have indeed been reignited. I am described as a 'veteran' senator; I have been around here for more than 20 years, but I have never seen some of the sectarian debate that has occurred. I will get to what happened in the committee inquiry in a moment, but I have never seen something like yesterday's point of order during Committee of the Whole, talking about senators being ghosts of the DLP. As I said at the time, the DLP that would have been relevant to my political participation concluded in 1978; I was 16 years of age. I was not a member of the DLP; I have member never been a member of the DLP. The only political party I have ever been a member of is the Australian Labor Party.
Did you hand out for them?
I do not see how that is relevant, Senator.
Senator Fifield interjecting—
Here we go again! We are continuing it. Senator Fifield, I do not think you understand what this minister has unleashed. For you to suggest that what any senator here now might have done as a young child is at all relevant is appalling, and you are continuing the appalling behaviour which I will come to with Senator McKenzie soon.
I just thought it was funny.
You might think it is funny, but sectarianism is not very funny. Let's move on to the important issue here, which is what a farce—
Thank you, Senator Collins. Senator Fifield?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy President: Senator Collins is misrepresenting my interjection. It was a lighthearted reference to whether she had, as a child—
It is on the record.
Senator Fifield, that is a debating point. Senator Collins.
Senator Fifield will have his opportunity in this debate. It is unfortunate that he did not take his opportunity in the cabinet. That is the problem. That we are now in this farce is the problem.
I was talking about the settlement that had been achieved during the Gonski 1.0 process, which was seriously damaged by the Abbott government's refusal to move beyond the four years of the six-year transition plan—the six-year transition plan that would have got most schools, in partnership with the states and territories, to a common student resourcing standard. Mr Turnbull and Senator Birmingham have come in here with the glossy rhetoric that they are on the same path, and that is simply untrue. What Senator Birmingham has done is take what was a combined funding approach and turn it into a Commonwealth share only approach, which will never achieve the outcome that is needed here. It will never achieve the standard, the resources, for Australian schools that is required.
Senator Birmingham, Senator Brandis and others have verballed various of the players in this debate, but the best example of where we are today, which I saw in this morning's press in an opinion piece in The Australian newspaper, is that by Peter Goss, who basically at one stage says: we have got to accept that the National Education Reform Agreement is dead, but the Senate should seriously fiddle with Gonski 2.0 and add a national education reform agreement. So he is saying on the one hand that we have to get over the fact that this government killed the National Education Reform Agreement—and he tries to make comparisons solely on the act itself and suggests that our only option is the act as it currently stands and this bill—but then says, 'Oh, but we should go back to a national education reform agreement.' Of course we should! And that is where it should have stayed.
This government criticised Labor for funding over the four years of the forward estimates, and it has been new to some senators in this debate to understand that states and territories do not have four-year forward estimates and it is a very difficult process to make states commit to ongoing funding over the forward years. This has been new information to many senators considering this debate. But look at this government's hypocrisy with this plan: 10 years, with only four years funded over the forwards. When you think about the rhetoric that was put on Labor about our four-year forward estimates of our six-year plan, you only need to reflect on this plan to see what hypocrisy that was.
So even if this government brings their plan—as has, again, been canvassed by commentators—down to eight years, or to seven or six years, it will still be four to six years too late; it will still be less funding that should be available; and there will be no commitment from states and territories to make their contributions. Let me remind people who are listening to this debate: for the contribution that was achieved with the states who became participating states and the other states that the government failed to bring into the package—the Abbott government failed to bring states who had agreed into the package—the offer there was two Commonwealth dollars for one state dollar. That is not on the table. How on earth does this government propose that we are going to bring the states into this arrangement? We do not know, and all that they say is, 'Um—we've deferred that till COAG next year.' What a farce!
The other element of this farce is the process farce, of course. The Senate inquiry: now, I accept the will of the Senate. Labor argued that we needed more time to address these matters in detail, and I thank senators for supporting my order for production of documents. To me, that does reflect that senators do now understand that there has not been adequate information and that there has not been proper consideration of the detail.
But, of course, another element of that Senate inquiry was the farce about how it was conducted. Firstly, and back to my point about sectarianism, for me to be accused on Twitter by the chair as running a protection racket for private schools which was eventually, after the hearing, finally withdrawn, is a joke. But add to that joke that the chair thinks that she can walk and chew gum at the same time. To me that is quite unethical chairing.
The other part of the joke, I think, was best represented by Crikey.com—not usually a friend of mine—which suggested that Senator McKenzie and Senator Hanson-Young were operating a tag team against me defending Catholic education. Since when does the Australian National Party form a tag team with the Greens to try to deny the Senate an opportunity to explore the details of a bill before it? This is, Senator Fifield, the sectarianism that I am referring to.
There has been a range of other commentary that it is better not revisited. The point here is that these wars had been settled back in 2013, and should have been left that way. This government is not settling the education wars: it has reignited them! As I said, when we have a clearer picture of what the provisions in this bill are we will deal with those in detail during the committee stage. But until such time as we understand what this bill is going to contain there really is no point in commentating further, other than to ask senators to reflect on their position on these issues in the past.
In closing at this stage, I will ask Senator McKenzie to refer back to a press release she made on 13 March 2013, where she said:
Results show that the Federal Labor Government’s fundng model, which is supposed to address inequity, will result in 25 per cent of the lowest SES Catholic schools losing funding.
Senator McKenzie, that is actually today.
But then, for all these stories about scaremongering, let me remind Senator McKenzie of this one, again, from her press release:
Under the Gonski recommendations, the average fees for Catholic Schools could rise between 200 - 300 per cent.
And yet she and other members of the coalition attack Catholic education for highlighting what the changes in this bill do to assumptions around what level of fees, low-fee—particularly Catholic primary school—parents would need to pay. That is the example of the farce occurring here.
Government senators, other than a few, are being incredibly hypocritical. Senator Fifield and his colleagues should get their act together in cabinet and fix this!
The Australian Greens have been abundantly clear all the way through this debate, since we saw the government's legislation, that we do not support the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 in its current form. We have given effect to that by voting against it in the House of Representatives when the member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, as a representative of our united party room on this issue voted against the legislation.
I am going to speak at some length in my speech about the principles with which the Australian Greens are approaching this issue, but before I do I want to briefly respond to some of the comments made by Senator Collins, who just resumed her seat. Firstly, she is claiming that Labor, when in government, 'settled the school funding wars'. I have rarely heard a piece of spin that bears so little relationship with reality.
Tasmania signed on when you were in cabinet!
I will take that interjection because I was actually the Minister for Education and Skills in Tasmania at the time.
I know, and you signed on!
We did sign on.
Thank you!
That is right. Exactly. But what that does is give me an almost unique position in this chamber to know exactly what was going on at the time. I am going to tell you now, Senator Collins, what went on at the time. What went on at the time was that David Gonski, in his landmark, groundbreaking report, recommended a range of things, including a sector-blind, needs-based funding model. What Labor delivered was about as far away as you could get from a sector-blind, needs-based funding model. There were agreements with different sectors, different jurisdictions and different states and territories. Obviously, the one I was part of negotiating on Tasmania's behalf at the time was one of those. I have not actually counted those agreements, but there were a lot of them. The government is saying there were 27.
Twenty-seven!
I think Senator Collins, by interjection, has just agreed with that. That sounds about right.
No, that is what they are saying.
It sounds about right: 27 separate agreements that were negotiated bilaterally.
You haven't fallen for this line, have you, Nick?
Senator Collins, I am going to continue here and I will not be shouted down by you.
Order! I just remind senators to make their comments to the chair. I remind other senators that it is disorderly to continue to interrupt.
Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I will not be shouted down by Senator Collins here because I am going to place on the record what happened. There were 27 separate deals across sectors and across jurisdictions. They were negotiated bilaterally and no-one got to find out what any of the negotiations were with any of the other sectors in the education system in Australia or with any other of the states and territories. What we ended up with I think would be accurate to describe as a mishmash of different agreements where some sectors won and some did not travel so well, and where some states and territories had outcomes that they were happy with and some states and territories had outcomes they were not happy with.
Of course, during this process and ultimately before that process had finished, Labor called a federal election. I will remember the day they called that federal election because there were still negotiations ongoing and at least some states and territories ultimately did not finally and formally conclude their negotiations. That is what Labor left us with. History shows that the government changed and the Liberal government came into power.
That was a long time ago. I have to say that the current government—the Liberal-National government—in this country have been derelict in their responsibilities on education since then. This has dragged out in terms of the government arriving at a position for far too long. Now, typically, when they have arrived at a position they want to bring this bill on for debate here today to put pressure on this Senate to pass it. Ultimately, I want to say that the government's tactic of bringing this bill on today to commence the debate is a tactic clearly designed to place pressure on this chamber.
I also want to say that the government has been derelict in its duties in regard to the way that it has negotiated with the Australian Education Union—or, should I say, failed utterly not only to negotiate but even to respectfully communicate with the Australian Education Union. When I was minister in Tasmania, I had a face-to-face meeting with the president of the Tasmanian branch of the AEU once a month. I would sit down face to face with them, and we would talk about a range of issues that existed from both sides of the table. I am very confident to say that I had a very good relationship with the AEU in Tasmania, because of course the Greens view education principally as a public good. We also believe that federal funding into Australia's school system, whatever the sector, needs to be done on the basis of need and equity to ensure that all Australian children have the opportunity to fulfil their best educational opportunities.
Before I leave the subject of the Labor Party—and this was raised by Senator Collins herself in her speech where she swallowed the grenade and denied that we were seeing a return of the DLP in this place—I have sat for two question times in here this week, and Labor has asked question after question after question on behalf of the Catholic education system in this country and not one question on public schools from the Labor Party.
A point of order.
Thank you, Senator Collins.
The DLP is back. Do not worry about that.
Senator McKim, resume your seat, please.
The senator is misleading the Senate. That is simply not true.
That is a debating point, thank you, Senator Collins.
We have all sat here and listened to question after question after question asked on behalf of the Catholic education system in this country. Labor will go out to the Australian people and claim to be champions of the public education system. But the true champions of the public education system in this place are the Australian Greens. Every time, we will attempt to do what is in the best interests of the public education system in Australia, because the people that we care about in the context of education debates are students in the public education system. We have been very clear about that. Our track record speaks for itself. If you look at the 27 different deals that Labor stitched up when they were last in government—
That is what the AEU want.
a reasonable interpretation—
You can't even represent them properly.
Order!
Senator Collins, I will not be shouted down by you. I will not be shouted down by you, Senator Collins.
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
Order!
I simply will not be. Once Senator Collins is able to control herself, Deputy President, I will be happy to continue. All right. Thank you.
As I was saying about the 27 separate and disparate agreements stitched up by Labor when they were last in government, in no reasonable assessment can it be claimed that those 27 agreements—as Senator Collins is claiming—'settled the school-funding wars'. Any reasonable person watching the question times that we have had in the Senate this week will understand clearly who the Labor Party are operating on behalf of in this place. Believe me, they are not operating on behalf of the public school system, students at public schools and parents who choose to send their children to public schools. They are operating on behalf of the Catholic education systems in this country. I invite anyone who may be listening or may be reading theHansardof my speech later to go and check the record. It is all on the Hansard. Labor's questions have been designed to advocate on behalf of the Catholic system and prioritising that system to a far greater degree than they did the public system.
We are approaching this matter and the discussions that we are having at the moment based on the principles that we believe in and the policies that have been developed through our membership—in fact, by our membership. Uniquely in this place we have a set of policies designed and delivered to us by our membership, and also in broad consultation with key education stakeholders. These are the principles that we are taking into our discussions and consideration on this matter. Primarily for us, education is principally a public good. We also believe very, very clearly that differences in educational outcomes should never be a result of differences in wealth, differences in income, differences in power, differences in what possessions people have or differences in where people live.
We have always believed, and always will, in the Australian Greens that universal access to high-quality education is fundamental to Australia's economic prosperity, it is fundamental to our environmental sustainability, it is fundamental to our wellbeing as a people and it is fundamental to the social fulfilment of Australians. We believe, as a principle, that everyone in this country is entitled to a free, well funded, high-quality, lifelong public education and training system. We also believe that it is a primary responsibility of government to fund all levels of the public education system to a high quality, from early childhood education through to our schools system. This includes VET—vocational education and training—and tertiary education. We believe that because, as I said, we have a view and a principle that everyone is entitled to a free, well funded, high-quality public education and training system.
It is also a key principle of the Greens that federal funding to Australia's school education system, which includes both public and non-government sectors, should be done on the basis of need and equity, to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to maximise their educational outcomes. As I said, David Gonski, when he released his landmark report, recommended a sector-blind needs-based funding model. That is not what we got from Labor at the time. It is just not. And no matter how loudly and at how much length the Labor Party try to claim that what they delivered was in line with what David Gonski recommended, no matter how loudly, no matter what spin Labor put on it, any reasonable, fair-minded person, if they have a look at what Labor delivered when they were last in government at the Commonwealth level, is going to conclude that what Labor delivered was not a sector-blind needs-based funding model.
In fact, when I was minister in Tasmania I introduced a new funding system for government schools in Tasmania—the Fairer Funding model. That was, and perhaps still is—I have not done an analysis, but at the time that was the funding model, of anywhere in Australia, that was the most faithful to David Gonski's principles. It only applied to the way we distributed money within the public school system in Tasmania, but it was a genuine needs-based funding model that allowed us, with the extra money that was flowing to Tasmania as a result of the agreement that we signed with Labor, to deliver significant school funding increases to every single public school in Tasmania. The minimum funding increase in the school resource packages of public schools in Tasmania, once we had implemented that model, was five per cent. Some schools got up to 40 per cent more money in their school resource packages—nearly half as much again as they had the previous year. I introduced, as minister, a genuine needs based funding model for distributing money amongst public schools in Tasmania, because I believe in a needs based funding model. I believe in it. I believed in it to the degree that I implemented it when I was minister in Tasmania. I still believe today that what Australia should have is what David Gonski recommended: a genuine needs based funding model. That is not what we have in this country at this time. It is just not.
Another principle that the Australian Greens have is that when decisions are made by government in the context of our education system and our school system, those decisions should be arrived at as a result of input from teachers and their representatives, from academics and experts in education, from unions representing teachers and academics, and ultimately, most importantly, through consultation with parents of children in Australia's education system, and, in fact, those students themselves.
We want to see—and this is the way we are approaching this issue—a public school system that is recognised as amongst the best in the world. There is no reason why this country cannot have a public system that is the envy of the rest of the world, but we are a long way from that. If you look at the way we have journeyed through the PISA rankings in recent times, we are heading in the wrong direction.
No-one who knows their way around education would suggest that simply by throwing funding at the school system we can achieve the outcomes that we want. The challenges are more complex than that, and there are a range of public policy measures that need to be put in place in order for us to deliver what the Greens want to see, which is a public education system in Australia that is recognised as amongst the best in the world. However—and this is important—extra funding certainly helps. It certainly helps.
One of the reasons we were not prepared to back the government's legislation in the House of Representatives, and why I am very comfortable rising here today in the Senate and saying the Greens do not support this legislation in its current form, is that the funding that was concurrent with this legislation simply was not enough. It is no secret that funding increases are one of the things that are front and centre in our minds as we work through this issue. As I said, we want to see schools' funding provided on the basis of equity and need, and we also want to see funding levels based on a transparent standard that recognises the real costs of educating students to a high level. We acknowledge and we want to see public schools being fully funded at a high level, including the full cost of addressing disadvantage. The mechanism to deliver that, of course, is the mechanism recommended by David Gonski, which recommended loadings based on specific areas of disadvantage, whether that be a location or whether that be, for example, a student with disabilities.
Our principles on this issue are abundantly clear. They are the principles that will guide us as we work through this issue in whatever time remains available to us, but Australian people can rest assured. The evidence is there from question times this week that the Australian Greens, front and centre, are the party, when you compare it with Labor, that has public education at the front of its mind. When you look at question times, as I said, the evidence of where Labor are coming from on this issue is abundantly clear. They are asking question after question about the Catholic sector in this country. The party that always champions itself as the party of public education, I am sorry to say, is morphing before our eyes. I am at a loss to understand why question after question from Labor was about the Catholic system in this country. (Time expired)
I rise to make a brief contribution to this debate on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. We have been hearing a lot about education funding and the need to reform, for the simple reason that children around Australia, for some years now, have been funded differently, with some 27 different agreements that have been struck by the previous Gillard government with states and territories. The community has been calling for some time for a fair and transparent system that will provide an equitable funding base for students. Speaking from a South Australian perspective, the agreement that was reached in South Australia—and I have spoken to a range of school sectors there—has seen many sectors with a very flat trajectory and increases only in the very latter part of what the agreement with the Gillard government had promised. They have maintained for a number of years that South Australian schools have not been treated well, for the simple reason that the level of funding has not been on par with interstate colleagues. What this agreement looks to do is to find and define a new baseline and bring all students from all states to a common point. Over a number of years, you will get that transition of increasing funding for students.
It is important to realise that, whilst there is the independent sector, the Catholic sector and the state sector, it is not only the federal government that provides funds to these schools. There are two particular concerns that I would like to briefly address as we look at this funding. First off, for state schools, it is state and territory governments that actually provide the majority of funding to those schools. So, when people see figures that highlight what the federal government provides to the different sectors and many people ask me why it is that the state schools seem to receive so little, it is because the primary responsibility for those state schools rests with the state governments. So if you look in net terms at what the taxpayer pays, whether that is through GST given to the states who then pass it on to the schools or whether that is funding given directly from the federal government to state schools, the state system is completely, or almost completely, funded by the taxpayer, whereas private schools do not receive the same extent of funding from states, and the majority of taxpayer subsidy for them comes through federal funding, with parents—often not high-income parents—working hard to make sure that they raise the additional funding to give children the schooling of the parents' choice. For many parents, it may come down to academic issues. For some, it may come down to issues of a faith-based education. But what we see is that all parents who are taxpayers pay money through their taxes, and the state and federal governments each make a contribution. But those who choose to pay extra not only take stress off the state system but pay for the quality and type of education that their children want.
The second point I would make, particularly around this current debate, is on the funding for Catholic schools. I have received a number of emails from people in the last few days talking about the funding for Catholic education. I just remind people who are listening to this debate that it was actually the Liberal Party and the coalition government who originally championed and pushed for the ability of parents to make that choice, and we have been a consistent supporter of funding schools of various kinds so that parents can make the choice as to where their children go. Those who wish for them to go to an independent or Catholic school top that up with fees.
The Catholic school system also makes its choices about where it allocates that taxpayer funding. So, part of the confusion in this debate is twofold. One aspect is that when people see some of the computer models that forecast the amount of funding that will be provided to a school they are seeing the SES based funding, such that the demographic of that school leads to the level of funding that will be attracted. That does not necessarily equate to the funding the school receives under the Catholic system. Under the Catholic system they receive a bulk payment, if you wat to simplify the term, from the federal government, and they can then distribute that funding as they see fit within their school system. Some of the people who have contacted me have looked at what their school has been receiving through the Catholic system and then compared it with what is on the website for an estimator and saying, 'We appear to be receiving less funding.' But the way the Catholic system has always worked is that they have taken a bulk payment from the federal government and then distributed it across the schools in their diocese or in their network according to how they have calculated the need of the school. So you cannot necessarily say that there will be less funding, because it depends very much on what the Catholic system wants to distribute.
The fact of the matter is that the Catholic system as an aggregated whole is receiving more funding year on year from the federal government under these arrangements, which is why you cannot say that schools are going to have to increase their fees as a result of federal government decisions, because the federal government is actually giving the Catholic system more money. If the Catholic system chooses to distribute that differently, that is up to them, but they have more money from the federal government to distribute to their school, so there is no school in any system—and certainly I can say this for South Australia—that will receive less money as a result of these changes. Every school in South Australia receives more money as a result of the changes this government is making.
The last area that is important to highlight is around what people have been saying in the media and in some of the letters I have received, particularly responding to comments from members opposite—that there have been cuts. Well, the reality is that the forward estimates—the four-year period—has in Australia's history always been the period when governments lock in and commit to spending, because the amount we have to spend should surely be based on what we can reasonably expect to have coming into the government, through individual corporate tax and through a range of revenue-raising measures. How far out can you predict that? If we said, 'Look, we think that in 100 years this will be happening,' people would laugh. In 50 years? People still would be pretty uncertain, or if we said in 20 years. You can bring it back four years. That, for many decades, has been the period for which governments can reasonably predict what our income will be and therefore what expenditure will be.
Prior to the 2013 election the Gillard government made promises going well into the future about very large amounts of money that they had not actually budgeted for. They could not explain where it might come from and could not give any guarantees. But that is the benchmark they are now claiming in saying that the record funding this government is giving to education is somehow a cut. So, people in the public are often—rightly—confused, because they hear one side of politics talking about cuts and the other side saying, 'Well, no, we're actually increasing funding.' I think it is really important for people who are listening to this debate to understand this. And I think Senator Xenophon made the comment that this is comparing apples with mythical pears. That funding in 2013 was a mythical pear that was held out as a promise but it was completely unfunded and there was no justifiable basis for how the Labor Party could ever deliver it. Yet, that is what people are now trying to say is the basis upon which the coalition government—they are saying—is cutting funding. That is just not correct.
We are delivering record amounts of funding this year to education. Every sector is receiving more funding. In South Australia's case, every single school is receiving more funding, which is why we have seen organisations such as the South Australian Primary Principals Association come out and say that this is a good deal for South Australian children. We have seen Catholic colleges, like Nazareth Catholic College, come out and say that this is a fair deal and a good deal, and we have seen independent schools and Christian schools come out and say that this funding model is good for South Australia. Because it is good for South Australian children and restores equity and transparency around the nation, I support this bill.
The Australian Conservatives believe in evidence based spending of government funding and resources. We are rightly concerned about the evidence that has been put forward by the minister with respect to this funding. We are rightly concerned about the principles applied by the minister in determining this policy position. And, as a former longstanding member of the Liberal Party, I am deeply concerned about the complete abandonment of Liberal values and principles by the government.
This bill, this policy mix, is yet another example of how the Liberal Party has completely lost the plot and jumped into bed with the big spending, big taxing ideas from the other side of the chamber. Their selling point to me to convince me to vote for this bill is: 'It would be worse under Labor. We are slightly less bad than the Labor Party. If we can't do a deal with you, Senator Bernardi, we will do one with the Greens and it will be worse.' All of those things may be true. But it does not negate the fact that that is not how we should be deciding public policy in this place. We should be looking at outcomes and this is an expenditure which violates, I think, the most basic principles of governance.
They have dressed it up in the guise that it is going to lock in security for the next 10 years for schools funding. That is absolutely nonsense, because whatever they decide they want to lock in can be changed by subsequent governments. They have adopted exactly the same process, which is a smoke-and-mirrors load of baloney that the other side put up under Gonski 1.0. They are saying: 'We're going to lock this money in. It won't be changed.' Then, when the opposition become the government, they seek to change it. Of course they can. It is unfunded beyond the forward estimates. We are fooling ourselves if we think a government can bind future governments on a recurrent expenditure process like this. It is a con. It is a 'conski'. It was 'conski 1.0'; it was rightly criticised by the Liberal Party and the coalition. Now they have 'conski 2.0', which is exactly the same thing but 'slightly less bad'. That does not cut the mustard.
They are saying they are 'slightly less bad' and they are going to do a better job. But they neglect to reflect on what I would call the key performance indicators: literacy and numeracy. Their policy is, 'We're going to throw money at this and hopefully it will turn out better for students'. There is zero accountability built into this program. 'Let's get the money, throw it in, and then we will decide how it's going to impact our students and our children later on'.
Much has been said in this place in recent years about record funding for education, yet the statistics are quite damning. We are ranked 25th in maths, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's Program for International Student Assessment, which ranks 15-year-olds. That is barely above the OECD average and trails Vietnam and Russia. We are ranked 16th in reading, behind Poland and Slovenia. We are 14th in science. If you look at the trends of the international rankings in maths and science, we trail many countries, including Russia and Kazakhstan. In fact, we are ranked 28th for nine- and 10-year-olds. That is a fall of 10 places from the same survey five years earlier. We are ranked 18th for 13- and 14-year-olds in mathematics, 26th for nine- and 10-year-olds and 17th for 13- and 14-year-olds in science. In almost every ranking we trail New Zealand.
So, more money is not the answer—yet both sides of this chamber boast about record spending on education. The big problem we have in education is that they are not teaching our children how to read and write. Children are not learning the literacy and numeracy that they need. That traditional teaching ethos has been abandoned in favour of things like Safe Schools, which I note the education minister defended from pillar to post, notwithstanding the evidence that was presented to him. He had a mock review of it, which was a dud, and he still went into bat for it. It is not about the outcomes; there is an agenda here, an ideology, that is underpinning this, and it is a fraud. It is a fraud because it is failing our students and it is conning the Australian people, suggesting that anyone who is opposed to this funding is apparently somehow for poorer outcomes for students. That is absolutely wrong—but Australian taxpayers do deserve value for money.
I also reject the notion that some students are more deserving than others. If we want our children to achieve the best possible education outcomes then each child should be equal. Each child should be funded equally. I note that the education minister, in his first speech—of course, you are full of bravado in your first speech; you can say what you think—said, 'Why don't we trial education vouchers?' The problem is he has abandoned that. He is now in a position to do something about it and he has abandoned that value, he has abandoned that principle, just like the Liberal Party have abandoned their criticism of 'conski' 1.0. What a metamorphosis we have seen. It was a con, and then at an election you had then education minister Christopher Pyne, the mentor for Senator Birmingham, promising that Gonski 1.0 would be funded and that they were absolutely committed to it. Now here they are trying to pull their own 'conski' on the Australian people. This is a complete abandonment of principle.
I suspect that there are some hardheads in the coalition who recognise they are staring down the barrel of electoral defeat because of the decisions that they have made in recent years, and they have decided that if you can't beat them, you might as well join them. I am not joining them in their socialist nirvana. They can have that to themselves. The Australian Conservatives will stand alone as principled conservatives that are determined to get good taxpayer value for money and good outcomes. We are determined to have key performance indicators to measure the success of programs rather than throw money at them and hope the problems all go away into the politically too-hard basket—and that is precisely what has happened here. Two wrongs do not make a right, and for the coalition government to be aping the Labor Party and the Greens party and chasing this unfunded 'Starship Conski', as I would call it, is absolutely wrong.
We, the Australian Conservatives, will be seeking to improve very bad legislation by saying that the funding for this program should exist only as far as the government has budgeted for it. That means over the forward estimates. It is nonsensical to promise a 10-year program. What is next—a 20-year program to education? We could play at one-upmanship the whole time. We could operate a 50-year program of $500 billion going into education. We will not spend any of it, or very little of it, now; but I promise you that in years 45, 46 and 47 we will put $100 billion into education in those years. It is nonsensical. No-one would believe it. Why would we believe this now? It is a con. Shame on those who are perpetrating this on the Australian people. On the one hand they say the Catholic sector will not be disadvantaged, and yet the evidence in the modelling suggests that $4 billion is going to be taken out of the Catholic sector and put into the public sector. Even though the minister denies that again and again, he will not release the modelling. I have had a senior minister come to me and say that the Labor Party's $40 billion Gonski 1.0 is legislated and there is nothing they can do about it; so unless I support this bill the Australian taxpayers will be $20 billion worse off. But when I raised that with the education minister, he said, 'No, that is not entirely true.' So in the same cabinet room they do not even know what they are trying to convince us of.
I know the minister is making the point that he has the crossbench all locked away. The threat is, 'We'll do a deal with the Greens and it will be much worse.' What sort of policy program is this? It is blackmailing over a system that is going to impact every child in this country. There are no key performance indicators in it. There is not one basis that says that if the school does not achieve a higher literacy or numeracy rate, the funding will diminish. There are no performance indicators. You might as well just throw it into a big black hole and say, 'Let's hope it comes out the other end.'
I am not buying that. I think it is absolutely wrong that governments think they can borrow money from future generations and scatter it wildly and hope that some of the seeds take root. It is a flawed thing. It was flawed when the Labor Party did that. I remember, when the coalition government had some principles left, they identified it as a con. It was underfunded; it was undemocratic; it was absolutely false. And now they are doing exactly the same thing. This has become a witch's brew of leftist policies in this place, and everybody is having their sip of it—eye of newt and tongue of ox, or whatever they want to put in there.
But in this little wedge—and it is a tiny wedge; there is only me right now, but I welcome anyone else—we are rejecting the witch's brew. We are going to continue to put forward ideas that are responsible, that are funded, that will get meaningful outcomes, that will ensure that parents have choice, that will ensure that education standards rise and that our children are not being done a long-term disservice because we feel that by simply throwing money at a problem it will go away. If money were the answer to success, then Collingwood would probably win a grand final every second year, because they spend more than anyone else. But it does not work like that. It does not work in education and it does not work in government.
I feel that I cannot trust anything that is being put to me in respect to this funding by members of the government. That is a very hard thing to say, but I do not believe what they are telling me. Their own people do not believe what they are being told. They tell me that they have been told one thing and then one of their colleagues is told something different. I reckon it is a massive con job. It is designed to fix a political problem rather than solve an education issue.
And it is an issue, because I think the education system is failing our kids. Yes, they might learn about gender theory or this or that, but it is not much good if they cannot write a sentence coherently. It is not much good if they cannot be literate and numerate and they cannot calculate the change from $5 when they are buying a cup of coffee or tea, which is the lived experience. When I was running a business, I employed a year 12 graduate who could not mentally calculate the change from $5 for a cup of coffee. You just ask yourself: how did we get to that circumstance? And they graduated year 12 with good marks, and they got entry to university! But no matter what it qualifies you to do in academia, if you do not have those practical skills, it is a dud. And we are getting worse. This is the great problem. We are getting worse by any standard, as we saw when I went through the trends in international maths and science.
So I am deeply concerned about this. I will try and improve it by limiting the indexation, which is an amendment that I think Senator Leyonhjelm is going to produce. I will support the funding model if it is limited to the forward estimates, where the government is accountable and has to budget for it. But I will not support some random figure that is unfunded and unaccountable and has no measurable statistics. I encourage those on the crossbench, those who are serious about getting positive outcomes, to get the government to rethink this policy—not to do a deal with the Greens or with Labor but to rethink this policy so that it actually has some bite; so that it places some responsibility on the school system to do better by our students; so that it is responsible with taxpayers' money; so that it does not lock in a three per cent funding rise if inflation is only one per cent; so that it does not lock in guaranteed ongoing funding for particular schools if they are failing our students just because parents do not have a choice about where they can send them; and so that it does not provide funding if schools are not delivering absolutely positive results for our kids. These are the problems that we face. This is a very expensive fix for a political problem that the government has. It does not want to fight a campaign against the AEC or the Labor Party about being different on education. It is preparing for its next election and it is doing taxpayers a massive disservice in the meantime.
I cannot foresee a way, based on what I know, where I can support this bill. It is because I do not trust the government, who have abandoned their principles; I do not trust the information I have been given; and I do not respect a policy that is going to promise to spend borrowed or taxpayers' money with no meaningful outcomes.
We are talking about the educational program, which is very important to all Australians. I can understand what Senator Bernardi is saying about the funding. One Nation has been having extensive talks not only with the government but with interested groups like Catholic schools, education, parents and Labor. We have sat down to try and find some common sense in where we are headed with this. We will be supporting the government's Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017, but I do have a few things to say about it.
The Labor Party have been talking about there being a cut under this bill of $22 billion. My understanding is that it is a lie. There is no cut of $22 billion. It is like Labor have gone out there and promised: 'We were going to be putting an extra $30 billion into the educational funding. Now the government is bringing it back to $18.6 billion, so therefore Australians have lost $22 billion.' No, you can have your wish list; you can go out there and say, 'We're going to give you this money,' but unless it is actually there on paper, in black and white—I can go out and say, 'I'm going to give you $1,000,' when I only have $500 to give. Unless you produce it, don't go out there telling lies to the public. That is exactly what they are doing now.
They are out there making these robocalls around Queensland saying, to all the workers at the coalmines there: 'This is the CFMEU and we're ringing you to tell you that Pauline Hanson's One Nation is supporting the Liberal Party and they're going to cut $22 billion out of government funding. This is a real cut to you. She's destroying educational funding.' This is another lie. This is basically like Labor's 'Mediscare'. You lie to people, you are not up-front with people, you are hypocrites. I would suggest, if you have to pull these dirty tactics and stunts on people to get back the votes in Queensland, that if you were honest with people, if you were up-front with people, you might do a better job than you are doing now. But the people are waking up to you.
My concern about this is: why do we need another $18.2 billion thrown at this when the federal funding for education now is just under $88 billion? On top of that there is state funding as well as parents who pay fees to send their kids to schools. When I went to school we did not have all this money thrown at us. Our education levels are dropping. Australia used to be very high on the list of educational standards, but we are dropping. People say it is because of lack of money—'Let's throw more money at it.' Throwing money at it is not always the answer, and I do not believe it is the answer now. We have lost control over our classrooms. But I think the main issue here is that we have lost the quality of teachers, because over the years these do-gooders who want everyone to feel good about themselves have come into the education system saying to kids: 'You're all right; you don't have to compete in the classroom, you don't have to have grades, you don't have to perform to be top of the class, so we're going to take grading away. We're not going to tell your parents whether you got 40 per cent or 85 per cent, because we want you to feel good about yourselves.' They are not competing.
I am telling you, that is what the real shock in our society is, because the kids are not competing in the classrooms and they are not competing when they get out of the classrooms either. When they get out into the real world and into the workforce, there is no competition, and life is about competition; it is about striving to do the best you can. Unless you know what standard you are at, how do you know how much further you have to strive? I have spoken to the education minister about this—that things need to change. It is not about throwing more money at it; it is about how we can improve our educational standards.
It is absolutely pathetic, seeing the way children write—or that they cannot write. We used to have a decent standard of handwriting called 'running writing'. Now kids are flat out even learning how to write, let alone do maths. And maths is not a prerequisite in every classroom. They cut out maths. In some schools you do not necessarily have to learn maths, science or even English. They are the basics that we need as part of our education for the rest of our life. And as Senator Bernardi said, kids cannot add up. How right that is. In my shop, we had the till there, and the till would tell you what change to give, but when we had blackouts the young staff did not even know how to count money out. Unless the till tells them how to do it, they cannot calculate—they cannot work out anything in life—because they are not taught the maths. We are relying for everything on computers, on calculators, and in real life that is not always at your fingertips to use.
We need to go back to the basics. In the classroom there is a lack of discipline. The teachers are told that they cannot discipline the kids. And our educational system is now teaching the kids their rights. They say, 'Your parents can't tell you what to do, because you have your rights.' Then when the kids go home their parents tell them something and the kids say, 'You can't tell me that; I know my rights.' Parents have that right. This is what the problem is in our education system. Kids need to know that if they do the wrong thing they will be disciplined, and teachers should have control over their classrooms. A lot of teachers want that.
Regarding the push for Safe Schools, most parents I talk to don't want that. They think it is a load of rubbish and they do not want their kids to be confronted with this. Yes, it has been forced onto the kids in some schools.
I hope this whole package works for our kids and for our education system. It will be brought before the board and I will continue to talk to the education minister with regard to bringing in maths and science and on the issue of the quality of our teachers, and stopping pushing them through the education system. What we especially need to stop is this attitude that everyone must go on to university. No, they do not. If you have kids who are not academically minded it would be better to get them on the tools or in the trade. Why don't we push that? Why don't we give them a better understanding so that businesses can go to classrooms and tell them what it is like to be a plumber, an electrician or an IT professional, or something else, rather than peer pressure saying to them that they must go on to university.
At the end of the day the is no real qualifying level you need to get into university. We have peer pressure making everyone feel they have to go to university. It will be a cost to the taxpayer and the student will never pass. It is like, 'I've been to university. Which one did you go to?' without there being a standard for education. Let's give kids the opportunity to choose other professions. Let them leave at year 10, if they are not academically minded, instead of keeping them in the education system just to bolster the figures so that they are not on Newstart or youth allowance and are not in the unemployment queues. Give them opportunity to go on to other trades.
That leads to TAFE colleges. TAFEs are being shut down. They are not getting the funding that is so important to a lot of young people who do not want to go on to further education in our universities. It needs to be funded and looked after. I will be supporting that for the TAFE colleges, and the government will look at it. I know the TAFEs have been under a lot of pressure.
The Catholic schooling systems have been concerned about this issue. They take up a lot of the slack—not only the Catholic schools but a lot of other non-government education centres. They are trying to do their best to educate a lot of people across the country. There has been talk about who is getting money and who is losing money and where the funding is coming from. The government is going to give non-government schools 80 per cent of this funding—they do not get state funding—and the state schools will be getting 20 per cent of the funding. On average, for each child at primary school there will be just over $10,000 and for each child at high school there will be approximately $13,000 funding. This package will give around 3.7 per cent in extra funding per child.
I thank Senator Back for the issues he has raised and which he spoke to us about. The government needs to look at whether this funding is going to have an impact on some schools, especially those in the lower socioeconomic areas, and whether will they close. That concerns me greatly. I am pleased to hear that they are actually going to put in place a requirement that that be reviewed in a year's time. I think that is very important as it will give it time to settle in and see that it is working. Senator Bernardi said that he does not want to take it over the 10 years. My concern is that schools and everyone else needs to know what is happening in the future. They plan further ahead than that.
If you only do it at four years, my concern is that, if Labor gets in at the next election, it will blow completely out of proportion. They will make all these wishes and throw billions more dollars at it without dealing with the real problem. There will be money spent that we will not have. I hate to think what Labor would throw at funding for the schools, because we cannot afford it. Like I said, it has been a real issue for One Nation to come to a decision on whether to support this at an extra $18.6 billion to the Australian taxpayers. But I hope that this will improve our educational standards if it is addressed in the classroom. I think that is what is very important about it.
There is another thing that we need to address, and I will go back to the classrooms again. I hear so many times from parents and teachers whose time is taken up with children—whether they have a disability or whether they are autistic—who are taking up the teacher's time in the classroom. These kids have a right to an education, by all means, but, if there are a number of them, these children should go into a special classroom and be looked after and given that special attention. Because most of the time the teacher spends so much time on them they forget about the child who is straining at the bit and wants to go ahead in leaps and bounds in their education. That child is held back by those others, because the teachers spend time with them. I am not denying them. If it were one of my children I would love all the time given to them to give them those opportunities. But it is about the loss for our other kids. I think that we have more autistic children, yet we are not providing the special classrooms or the schools for these autistic children. When they are available, they are at a huge expense to parents. I think we need to take that into consideration. We need to look at this. It is no good saying that we have to allow these kids to feel good about themselves and that we do not want to upset them and make them feel hurt. I understand that, but we have to be realistic at times and consider the impact this is having on other children in the classroom.
We cannot afford to hold our kids back. We have the rest of the world and other kids in other countries who are going leaps and bounds ahead of us. Unless we keep up a decent educational standard in this country we will keep going further backwards and backwards, and our kids will not be the ones who are getting the good jobs in this country. They will be bringing in people from overseas and filling positions in this country that belong to our children. Our education is very important, and I feel that it needs to be handled correctly and we need to get rid of these people who want everyone to feel good about themselves. Let us get some common sense back into our classrooms and into what we do. Like I said, One Nation has spoken to many areas. Have we got it right? I hope we have got it right, because it is very important.
I see so much in this place. It is the blame game, and Labor opposes so much all the time just because they are in opposition. It is a pity that parliamentarians in this place do not sit down and really have clear discussions with each other and find what is best for the people, because they are sick and tired of this. Labor, you said that you wanted to throw money at this. I think the $18.6 billion is a good start. It is a start. Why can't you work with the government on this, and then build on that? If this money is not going to the place where it is supposed to, and if it does need more funding, then work together to increase the funding. Stop opposing things just because of the fact that you are in opposition. It is about working together for the future of this nation. I just get so frustrated with the whole lot here, because I know people want the right answers. Not everyone—and I have heard it from those who are Liberal voters—is entirely happy with this package, whether they are hearing the right message not. 'What is right?' is a tough decision to make, but at least this is a step in the right direction, and that is what we are trying to do. One Nation is trying to handle this in a way that gives assistance to all those parents and schools, and extra funding for educational policy. That is One Nation's stance on it. We will be supporting the government on this bill.
It gives me great pleasure to stand in this chamber this morning and speak to the government's Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. I chaired the Senate committee that was tasked to perform an inquiry into this bill, just as I sat on the Senate committee that was tasked to inquire into the original Australian Education Bill, where unfortunately we saw the implementation of David Gonski's panel's recommendations corrupted, in the name of panel members, corrupted by a Gillard government desperate to maintain power and desperate to get a deal done with the states and different systems. Now, a few years down the track, that sees Australian students treated very differently depending on where they live.
As somebody who has come from the education sector—I was a secondary teacher and a lecturer in the Bachelor of Education at an institution in my home state of Victoria—I have a deep and abiding interest in ensuring that every single Australian student, no matter where they go to school, receives an excellent education. The people that I represent, the constituency at the very heart of the National Party's ethos, is rural and regional Australia. Of the nearly one million country kids attending school outside capital cities, the vast majority are attending state schools at the primary and secondary level. What we see right now, under the existing act and its provisions, is that state school students in one state, for instance Western Australia, are being treated very differently by the Commonwealth government than students with the same level of need by the New South Wales government.
For us here in the Commonwealth parliament, in the Senate chamber, that brings all states together, that is just is not fair. Let the states argue their specific vested interests in their space and for their specific education budgets; but here in this place we need to take a national review. We need to ensure that every Australian child is treated the same by this place. What we have been able to achieve in the provisions of this bill is to ensure that if you attend your local Catholic primary school, your small independent Christian school, your local Jewish school or your local state primary school, you will be treated the same by the Commonwealth government according to your needs. That is only fair and just, and that is how we should be approaching education policy in this country.
We know that we have been spending record amounts of funding over time. In the report released by the OECD even as late as last week we are not doing well when it comes to quality education and student outcomes. At the end of the day, this is not about staff student ratios; it is not about how long school goes for how shiny your building is or who has the equestrian centre and who has not. This is about the outcomes for Australian students. We need to ensure that they have a high-quality education equipping them for the jobs of the 21st century. It should not matter which school they go to in determining that.
What we do know and what research tells us is that students come into classrooms with a different set of needs. These needs affect their capacity and ability to engage in the schooling system. So Gonski and the former Labor government identified, and indeed it is reiterated in our own bill here today, that there are a series of loadings that ensure that those levels of need are actually funded, so that those students who are of Indigenous descent, who attend rural and regional schools, or who have to attend school with a disability—all of those factors are taken into account in the needs based funding model. The only people complaining about this bill and the enactment of a needs-based, sector-blind funding model of those people who have had sweetheart deals for way too long. Like we stand up and critique vested interests in the business sector and in the union sector, so too we call out vested interests in this area which are actually undermining the delivery of a high-quality, needs-based, sector-blind funding model to every Australian student.
These changes get rid of the opaque and unfair system entrenched by the previous government. I note Dr Ken Boston, a panellist for the original Gonski review in 2011, has described what occurred under the previous, Labor government as a 'corruption of the Gonski report'. You would think the Labor Party would be getting on board the rectification of that corruption right here, right now, today. However, they continue to do what they always do and play cheap political games with the lives of Australian students, and it is simply not on. I commend every senator in this place who is seriously considering why this Commonwealth parliament should not treat every Australian student the same.
To illustrate the consequences of this regime, I turn to a small country primary school in Victoria, 40 kilometres north of my electorate office, with 41 students. It currently attracts Commonwealth funding of $26,731 per student per annum. A comparable school in New South Wales, with 42 enrolments, attracts $11,039 per student per year. That is a massive differential between small primary schools in country New South Wales and those in country Victoria that just should not be occurring but has been able to under the Labor Party's iteration of the Gonski deals. They have similar needs, yet there is a gulf in funding between them. That shows everything that is wrong with the act as it stands and why it needs amendment right now.
Another example is that 530 of the schools with the highest proportion of Indigenous students are in remote or very remote areas. These changes will ensure their particular needs are met.
We need to have a more granular approach to students with a disability to ensure that a teacher in the classroom is able to assess a student's need and the amount of resources required to address that student's learning outcomes, because that is what we are talking about—learning outcomes, not just money from money's sake but how we are going to help those individual students reach their potential and learn to the best of their capacity. And that is by having a much more granular approach to how we deal with students with a disability loading, and that is something we are absolutely committed to.
I also want to go to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee inquiry on the bill. We received overwhelming evidence about the need to 'end the funding wars' when it came to education funding in this country, including from the Grattan Institute, who, typically, does not side with our side of politics, but wanted those issues put to bed. I think the most telling evidence was from ACSSO, which represents the parents of the over two-thirds of Australian students that attend state schools in this country. The ACSSO president, Mr Spratt, came to our hearings. Whilst it was great to hear from the smaller sectors and the different systems, it was great to hear from somebody that represented two-thirds of our nation's students' parents. As the chair said:
You have been very clear in your desire to end the funding wars—to get it sorted—
to support this bill.
We have to take on board and ensure that the Commonwealth government treats every single Australian student fairly and justly.
Another issue that we are addressing is the need for states to maintain their contribution levels. Over recent years, while the Commonwealth government has been chipping in more money, we have seen states decreasing their rate of investment in their constitutional responsibility to educate the students within their state boundaries. That is simply not acceptable. If the Commonwealth government is going to invest record funding—I know others in this place have gone into the actual level of funding that will be distributed under these initiatives—then it is imperative that state governments stop playing politics with those students who are attending non-government schools within their boundaries and treat every student the same within their own boundaries. I hope this legislation will put their feet to the fire and help them get on board with focusing on how they can treat all students and maintain parental choice, which is a core fundamental aspect of our education system here in this country.
Again, I could go into the different deals and how they impact time and again on how different students are treated differently. One of the things that struck me about the Senate inquiry we conducted was that there were no questions from the Labor Party senators about public school funding. Every single question from the Labor Party senators was about how the private schools, the non-government sector, were going to fare under the changes being suggested. That beggars belief. I am a public school teacher and a lot of my kids went to public schools and the children of my constituents, en masse, attend state schools, so I want to see a very strong state school system—and this bill does what Labor's bill could never do. They are too busy playing footsies with premiers leading up to an election rather than considering outcomes for Australian students.
I want to put on the record some critiques that have been made in recent days on the guarantee, particularly for those private schools that operate as systems, that private schools will be getting an increased level of investment. We are the side of government that does support parental choice, but we also recognise that that should not come at a cost to investing in all students' education. I specifically go to the Catholic education sector. Between 2018 and 2021 the average annual per student funding to the Catholic sector will increase by 3.7 per cent and by a total of $2.8 billion between 2018 and 2027. That is a phenomenal amount of increased funding, and I am confident, as I travel around regional Victoria and I talk to Catholic principals, I talk to state school principals and I talk to independent school principals, that they are desperate for this money to enter their schools so they can provide the resources that their students need. It is absolute hypocrisy for people to stand up here today and talk about cuts in funding when, in a needs based system, if you have a need it will be funded. That is how it works. If you do not have a need, you are going to miss out. I have no objection whatsoever to ensuring that incredibly overfunded schools under the current system get a cutback. I would much rather see increased investment in rural and regional state schools across this country than see North Shore Sydney privates continue to get the level of funding that they are getting under the Labor Party's agreements right now. That is the level of unfairness that this bill seeks to undo, and I encourage all senators who care about equity and fairness to support it.
People often mention the Finnish system—why aren't we more like Finland? Do you know what makes the Finnish system so great? It is not about the buckets of money; it is about a bipartisan approach to education over two decades rather than this argy-bargy 'he said, she said, we do it better, no you don't' argument. Our future is dependent on the educational outcomes of every Australian student right now. We know we are not achieving in international—
Mr Acting Deputy President, I am very interested in listening to Senator McKenzie's presentation. Senator Marshall, who is a very good Deputy President of this chamber—
Do you have a point of order?
I don't know why they dumped him on that side—would keep order in this place, but he is being very disorderly, and I ask you to bring it to his attention or instigate standing order 203.
Senator Marshall, on the point of order—and let's make it relevant, if possible.
Of course. Senator McKenzie is suggesting that there is hypocrisy and there are double standards.
That is not relevant to the point of order.
It goes exactly to the point. If Senator McKenzie is going to be so provocative, she expects—
Senator McKenzie interjecting—
Senator Marshall, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, I do not need any assistance. You do not have the call yet. Senators are entitled to be heard in silence in this place, and it becomes particularly difficult when we have a small chamber with only a limited number of people. I would ask that that covenant be respected. Senator McKenzie, you have the call.
Thank you very much. No, you do not need any help from me in chairing or anything else.
It was the majority view of the committee examining all of the evidence before it to support this bill notwithstanding there were issues raised. I think the minister in his public commentary and other senators have dealt fairly and squarely with those concerns. It is our view that, if fully enacted as presented here today, this bill will create a system for public funding of schools that is fair and transparent. That has been one of the great critiques. The Commonwealth tips a lot of money—a record bucket of money—into certain systems, whether they be state systems, whether they be private school systems such as the Catholic education system, and has no real understanding or visual oversight of where that is going. To have a transparent system where parents and taxpayers can actually hold state governments and education systems more generally accountable for where they spend their money and who is getting that share of the funding is appropriate. It is absolutely the right policy position to take.
The bill will also ensure the highest levels of funding growth will occur where the need is greatest. Isn't that fantastic? Where you have some out-of-school needs which are actually going to impact how you engage with the education sector, the Commonwealth is prepared to back that and to ensure that the school has a level of funding to assist with overcoming those barriers. What I know about representing rural and regional Australians is the level of educational disadvantage is incredible. On any measure—NAPLAN results, PISA results, participation in higher education, you name it—rural and regionality is an issue with educational engagement. That must change. It is why our government has initiated an in independent review into rural and regional education and it is why one of the loadings is about the location and size of a school.
Similarly, so is SES. We know that the 10 electorates in this country with the lowest median income levels are in rural and regional Australia. This not only deals with inequity right now and over the coming 10 years but backs in the investment we need in my communities to ensure we have the skilled, engaged, educated young people and ongoing workforce that we need to fully participate in all the opportunities that the 21st century brings for us in agriculture and across the board.
It also puts an end to students with the same needs being treated differently depending on where they live. Anyone that is interested in fairness, do not listen to the opposition. If they are talking about fairness on one side and Gonski on the other, full stop turn it off. You are not hearing the truth. I sat and had a bit of a listen to the opening couple of lines of the shadow minister for education in her speech on this bill's second reading, and it was absolutely unbelievable. The level of falseness that she pursued through that speech was very concerning. The ABC Fact Check is not always great for my side of politics, but I tell you: they got it right on the Labor Party's claims about the Gonski funding—that the Labor Party was misleading not just the parliament but the entire nation around any talk of the $22 billion cuts—and yet we allow that conversation to go on. I see you nodding, Senator Marshall—
I'm laughing.
But we continue to let it go on. The AEU, which has spent $20 million on a Gonski campaign, when presented with a model that is going to end the inequity, cannot come to the party. During the Senate inquiry, when asked, 'Are you happy for students in WA state schools to continue to receive different levels of funding to students with the same need in my home state of Victoria?' the AEU refused to answer, but it made it very clear that it wanted to keep the entrenched disadvantage inherent in the 27 different deals as part of the policy of the Commonwealth government. It is absolutely an abomination. I commend this bill to the Senate. I thank the crossbenchers who are actually putting Australian students first in their consideration. (Time expired)
It is with quite a deal of interest—interest and curiosity—that I am rising to speak to the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 today, because I think we still do not yet quite know where this bill is going to land. It is of concern that the government has brought on this bill for debate today while negotiations are still ongoing, for this is a critical issue for the future of Australia and our education systems. Achieving equity, fairness and the best outcomes for kids at all schools across Australian is fundamentally critical to the future of our country.
There is one thing that is clear in terms of the way that the Greens are approaching this: front and centre we are being completely guided by what is in the best interests of all school students at all schools across the country. We particularly have the interests of children who are going to public schools, and we want to make sure, in particular, that we achieve the best outcomes for the neediest public schools. We have a great opportunity to reform schools funding so that it is genuinely needs based and sector blind. That is not where our schools funding is at the moment. Schools funding currently is a complete dog's breakfast. Schools funding under the deal that is supposedly the result of the last reviews led by David Gonski is supposedly needs based and sector blind. It clearly is not. There are carve-outs all over the place. It is not fair. It is not equitable if you are a school student in the Northern Territory compared to a school student in the ACT, for example. So we have a really important opportunity now, and it is up to us to make the most of that opportunity.
There are some good things that the government has put on the table now, such as the changes to the architecture to make it more genuinely needs based and sector blind. But the Greens are not going to support the model that is on the table at the moment, if that is the one we end up voting on, because it is not a model that delivers what we need for our schools. Clearly there is not enough money on the table at the moment. The mechanisms are not there to make sure that the states are going to continue to pay their fair share. In our federation responsibility for education is shared between the Commonwealth and the states, and it is not going to be any use at all if the Commonwealth increases its funding but allows the states to squib their part of the deal—that we get extra money from the Commonwealth, but the states go, 'Oh, that's good. Right. Terrific. We'll go and pocket it and not spend it.' Clearly we have to maintain that nexus. We have to make sure that the increase in funding that is required comes from both the Commonwealth and the states.
The other critical factor that the Greens have been arguing for, which was part of the original Gonski review, is having an independent body to overview schools funding into the future so that it can be genuine and we can trust that we know that it is absolutely going to continue to be fair, equitable, needs based and sector blind. So that is what the Greens are continuing to fight for, and we will continue to fight for that and continue to put the needs of every school student in Australia at the forefront of our negotiations.
As I said, the critical issue is what is in the best interests for all kids in all schools, but particularly the kids of those families who frankly do not have the resources to be paying private school fees. They should not have to. Those children, as much as any other children in the country, deserve a gold-standard education. Our country needs them to receive that gold-standard education because it is in our national interest. If you look at how the Australian education system is currently performing on the world stage, our best schools are up there with the best schools in the world. The kids that are going to those best schools are achieving the outcomes that we can be really proud of. But, sadly, that does not extend through to all of our schools.
What we do not have is equity in education. That is what we need to achieve. The best performing school systems in the world, such as the Finnish system, are the ones that have that equity so that you know, no matter what the background of a child is—what their family background is, how much income their family has or whether they are Indigenous or not Indigenous—they are getting the resources that are required to enable them to achieve their full potential. That is what the Greens are fighting for—improving equity in our education. That means making sure that more resources are going to go to the most needy of public schools.
I have visited many schools across Victoria in my three years as a senator. The most recent one I visited, just a couple of weeks ago, was Tarneit Senior College. Tarneit Senior College is in one of Melbourne's growth areas—the outer western suburbs—and, despite being in a growth area and despite being a relatively new school that has only been built within the last decade, it is struggling. It has not had put into it the resources that are required. Usually, when you arrive at most schools you visit, they at least have the resources and feel that they have to be able to market themselves. There will be a grand entrance, even at a lot of our public schools. But, no, the entrance to Tarneit Senior College is off the car park. There is a little sign on the gate saying, 'All visitors, please report to the office.' You look and think, 'Where's the office?' There is no building that is obviously going to be one that has an office there. You follow the signs, and the office is in a portable building—and they expect it to be in a portable for many years to come. It has been in a portable for the whole life of the school.
I had a terrific meeting with the principal, who showed me around the school and showed me where they are still lacking in funding, where they need more funding to be able to provide the resources to make sure that all of their kids can achieve their potential and what they have been able to do with the extra money that has been put into their school over the last two years. In particular, I met their wellbeing team—their social workers and other staff working to ensure the welfare of all of their students. They told me some pretty amazing statistics. There are quite a lot of issues that Tarneit as a growth area is facing. It is actually an area that has a high turnover in population because of the unaffordability of housing right across our cities, even in growth areas. The people who move to Tarneit hoping to find affordable rent find, after a while, that they cannot afford to pay the rent there, and they move even further out and they move to regional Victoria.
So, there is lots of transience. There are low-socioeconomic families there, and huge multicultural diversity—lots of newly arrived families. There are major, major student needs. This is reflected in the fact that they now have a student wellbeing team of five staff, whereas two years ago they had only one. They have 420 students in years 10 to 12. Of those 420 students, 317 last year accessed the services of their student wellbeing team—three-quarters of the students. This is a school that is struggling, that needs more resources put into it. This is the type of school I have in my mind when we as Greens are negotiating to get the best outcomes for students and families.
The other issue which is, again, so critical—why we need to ensure that schools like Tarneit Secondary College get the level of funding they deserve—is that if they do not we know the pressure that puts on families, feeling that this school actually is not going to give their kids the best education. They have competition from local private schools. Then there are families that can afford to pay private school fees but may have to dig really deep and miss out on other things because they feel that in order to get the best education they have to send their children off to private schools. So then you get the segregation of the wealthier families who are sending their kids to private schools and those that have no option and so are sending their kids to the state high school. That is not in the interests of the wellbeing of our community. That is not going to be delivering the best educational outcomes.
We need to have the resources of all of the community feeding into and supporting our public education system. But in order to do that we have to make sure that schools like Tarneit Secondary College are funded appropriately. As a Victorian senator, that is what I am going to be fighting for: to make sure that those schools get the resources they need, that they are not going to be disadvantaged. Under any needs based, sector-blind model, with an adequate quantum of funding, they are the schools we are going to be fighting for. All children deserve the best education possible to set them up for a bright future. Their educational outcome should not depend on their family's wealth or income or on the state they live in. And parents should not have to shop around because they are worried that their local public school does not have the resources to educate their kids. Public education should be the gold standard, not a safety net.
I experienced this as well. My two kids both went to local high schools in the western suburbs. One went to Williamstown High School and one to Footscray Secondary College. They were great schools, but I was under a lot of pressure when we were choosing schools for my kids, who are reasonably bright kids: the number of my friends who said, 'Oh, you should be sending them off the private schools, because the local secondary schools aren't going to be able to deliver for them.' And we said: 'No, we're going to send them off the public schools. We are absolutely, philosophically committed to sending them off to public schools.' And they did brilliantly.
But many of their fellow students at Footscray and at Williamstown came from families from the outer western suburbs and were travelling long distances, where they could, to go to what their parents thought was a better public school. That is not a good outcome. We should be ensuring that the families living in St Albans, the families living in Werribee, the families living in Tarneit have a school they can be proud of. That is why we really need to have this genuine Gonski model of funding. It is absolutely critical for our students. We need that genuine, sector-blind, needs based model that is prioritising funding to look after the needy schools and kids. And we need to get that investment sooner.
One of the current concerns we have with the government's legislation is that although more funding would be flowing it is not going to be delivering outcomes to the most needy of schools until 10 years into the future. That is not good enough. It means that a kid who is in grade 3 today will not have the full funding going to their school until they are at the end of high school. We need to make sure that we get that greater investment sooner so that we can give every child the opportunity to reach their potential.
We have never had that genuine model. The current Gillard Gonski model is clearly not needs based. It is locked-in funding to the wealthy private schools at the expense of public schools. The current Turnbull Gonski 2.0 is not sector blind. It is offering certainty to private schools but it leaves the neediest public schools little chance to catch up after years of neglect.
What's your position now? Are you voting for it?
The Greens position is that we are continuing to negotiate. There are some advantages that the government's model is offering, improving the architecture—
Order!
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! Interjections while senators are speaking is disorderly and interjections while the chair is talking is even more disorderly. Senators are entitled to be heard in silence, and that is how we are going to proceed. Senator Rice, you have the call.
Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Clearly, we have got a dog's breakfast at the moment. We are being failed by both parties, with both of the models that are on offer. A continuation of the old system is not good enough. The government's model that is currently on offer is also not good enough. The Greens will continue to negotiate to get the best outcome that we need, and that means having a genuine Gonski. It means putting kids before politics. It means making decisions on where we stand on the basis of what is the best policy outcome—not playing political games.
What Labor are supporting at the moment is not the genuine Gonski. Labor walked away from the central premise that all schools should be funded on the basis of need. They promised that no school would lose a dollar, which sounds great, but it actually means that the wealthiest schools will continue to get more and more money, while those with scarce resources, the least well-off, will be deprived of funds. It means that we would have the continuation of the disparity, of the inequity, in our education system. The indexation that is on offer under Labor, which is locked into the legislation, means that poorer schools would take more than 100 years to catch up to those schools that are underfunded—let alone 10 years. It will be 100 years before they will be able to catch up to those that are underfunded. That inequality of opportunity is currently what is locked into law. Clearly, that is not a system that we would want to see continue.
An analysis by the Grattan Institute says that Labor's education plan taken to the 2016 federal election would have added mega bucks but still not achieve consistent needs based funding for over 100 years. The Labor Party claim that the Turnbull government's cutting of $22 billion from schools over the decade is also a widely inaccurate claim. It is simply the difference between what Labor promised at the last election; it is not what is in law right now. Labor are currently not in government, so their promises sounds great but they actually mean nothing now. In order to have certainty over that, Labor should have locked in that funding before the 2013 election, but they chose not to do that. They chose not to lock in that amount, because they wanted to use our schools, our education, and the funding for schools in political game-playing in the election campaign. We could have had fairer funding locked in place if the Labor government in the lead-up to 2013 had chosen to do so, but they chose not to. On the other hand, the Turnbull government is claiming that there is a boost in funding of $16 billion over the decade, but this is based on the low level of funding that former Prime Minister Abbott stripped it back to. Neither of the parties are delivering fair, equitable and honest statements about our education system. The two parties are playing politics while our public schools are losing out. We need to be putting kids before politics. We need to be making sure that we have a system that is genuinely needs based and sector blind.
We also have these claims that public schools are going to be receiving a cut under the government's Gonski 2.0 proposal, but, in fact, no public school system in Australia will receive a cut under the proposed funding model. The only notionally overfunded public schools in Australia are those in the Northern Territory, and they have been given additional funding under the government's proposed plan so their funding is not going to backwards. Government schools in every state will see their funding increase. Because they are all funded at different rates by the Commonwealth currently, the rate that they increase will be different. Historically underfunded states will increase at a faster rate than those that are closer to the target.
Again, there are some good things that, as Greens, we want to be building upon. The best outcome is for us to negotiate an agreement that ends up with a genuine needs based, sector-blind funding system that will deliver the best outcomes, equitable and fair outcomes, that will give every kid the opportunity to achieve their potential. We are going to do that by changing the architecture so that it is genuinely needs based and sector blind, and by putting in the resources so that all schools will be up to the standard that is required to allow kids to fully achieve their potential.
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I rise to speak to the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. This bill seeks to make a range of changes to the Gillard-era Australian Education Act 2013 to implement the government's so-called Gonski 2.0 education changes. These include a range of funding changes that seek both to increase education funding overall and to reapportion funding between and within the public and private school systems.
Pauline Hanson's One Nation will be supporting the government's amended legislation; however, the key issues that need to be highlighted are accountability and choice. At Pauline Hanson's One Nation, we continue to listen widely. We appreciate very much the input from New South Wales Labor senator Deb O'Neill, whose passion and commitment to education is certain. We also appreciate the commitment and the passion with which Senator Chris Back, the Liberal senator from Western Australia, spoke to us this morning. Both are clearly knowledgeable and passionate about education; that came through with both of them. We listened to Senator David Leyonhjelm and Senator Cory Bernardi, and we will be considering their amendments for increasing the rigour and accountability of this bill as it is implemented. We listen, most importantly, to constituents, and we live ourselves in local communities with diverse state, Catholic and private schools. These vary from New South Wales with Senator Burston, to Queensland with Senator Hanson and me, to Western Australia with Senator Georgiou.
In my early years as a child in India, I went to a school for expats run by Italian nuns using the acclaimed Montessori philosophy. I then went to state schools in New South Wales and then to a boarding school in Queensland. So I have sampled the private school sector and the independent school sector and I have also sampled state schools. My wife and I have two children who are now adults. Our kids went to a private primary school, based on the needs of the child, using the Montessori philosophy with parents paramount in the running of that school, albeit through an elected board appointing a principal. So there is yet another model. Then my children went to a state high school that had a history of respect for children. My understanding is that it was the only Queensland state high school with no uniform. What we want is for our kids to think for themselves and to discover as they wish. They have different interests, not just because one is a boy and one is a girl, but because they have different experiences and spirits when they came into this world, and different interests and passions.
Let me tell you a story. I want comment on the Greens. Before getting to that, I want to comment on one of their funders—the CFMEU. The CFMEU put a robocall around Queensland yesterday. They are saying that our party, Pauline Hanson's One Nation party, is calling for cuts to education spending. That is false. What would we expect from the CFMEU? It is a dishonest statement trying to hurt Pauline Hanson's One Nation party. The CFMEU is above all a political organisation. It is no longer a union that looks after its members. The union bosses are disconnected. It is these people from whom the Greens take their money.
It is not true at all that Pauline Hanson's One Nation wants to cut education spending. We are actually in favour of strong education funding. No money has been taken out in this bill. The CFMEU's puppets, the Greens, say we need equity in education, as they often do. I am going to tell you a little story about two countries pretty soon. We do not want equity—sorry, equality—of opportunity; we want choice—equality of opportunity, because that gives choice. When choice is available it leads to accountability, and it leads to progress. That comes from accountability and choice—when humans are free to exercise our free will, our human spirit, in a way that enables us to take responsibility.
I would like to talk about the basics of education. That is a right of every child, with rigorous, effective education being the foundation for our nation's future economic prosperity and moral, spiritual and social health. There are three topics I would like to raise. First of all, state responsibility. Under our Constitution, the responsibility for education is with the states. That is where it should have been and should have stayed, and that is where it needs to be returned. We operate under competitive federalism—or rather, we used to. Centralisation has led to the politicisation of schools and has led to travesties such as the Safe Schools program, which is initiated federally and spread through some of the states, notably the Victorian Andrews government with its ridiculous Safe Schools policy. This is what centralisation gives us—United Nations driven ratbag propaganda such as Safe Schools, that are nothing more than brainwashing and propaganda exercises levied on the young and impressionable. Safe Schools are not about safe schools; Safe Schools are about violent schools—emotionally violent schools. Safe Schools are about intimidating young boys and girls from the age of four onwards—intimidating and confusing them.
The second thing I would like to talk about is individual choice—not state mandated social engineering, but choice, through vouchers. That leads to accountability.
The third thing I would like to talk about is effective education preparing boys and girls for the real world, so that boys and girls can pursue their dreams, their interests and their passions. We do not need boys especially sitting in school from the age of four or 5 to 18. That is not what many boys want to do. Boys in particular, but also girls, humans in general, learn by doing. Boys in particular learn by doing and by implementing what they learn. I have been to two universities and I am a graduate from two universities, one of them recognised as one of the finest in the world. I do not want every person to go to university—only those who want to go to university.
Let me tell you a story of two countries: East and West Germany. After the Second World War, West Germany was liberated from the American government by Ludwig Erhard, the Treasurer under the Chancellor at the time. East Germans and West Germans worked together in the Second World War and came up with a remarkable industrialisation and a remarkable inventiveness. The East Germans were restricted by socialism after the Second World War. The West Germans were liberated under Ludwig Erhard and free markets.
As a result of that simple difference, the East Germans over 50 years produced the Trabant car, a little papier-mache box with a smelly, dirty, polluting and noisy engine. People had to line up in East Germany to get that car because there were not enough of them available. The East Germans were a basket case. The West Germans, at the same time, produced Mercedes, Porsche, Volkswagen, Audi and Opel. The West Germans produced the world's most aspired to cars.
Today we have a Trabant education system, and it is producing Trabants. The Greens love Trabants. They want Trabant energy, and we can see the cost of energy in this country. They want Trabant science, which is not science at all. They want a Trabant environment, which is hurting our environment. They want, you see, what the East Germans wanted, which was control, yet they cannot see the results of denying the human spirit.
What we want to see, though, is states delivering education and, within that education, states enabling individuals to have their choice of education. We accept a national minimum standard that makes it simple for standards to be accepted around the country, but we want to see the states implement their own curricula because only then will we see a development of curricula from one state to the next with superior curricula rising to the fore and other states copying those.
We need a certain level of qualification before people can be accepted into trades and universities. That is now dwindling. We need to restore that. We need teachers with authority, with responsibility, with a specialty where it suits them and with a real job, not childminding, as it has become in some parts of our country. We need an emphasis on maths, English, science and history, and we need a return to teaching about the Constitution. We must send education back to the states. That will end the waste and duplication, and it will liberate the human spirit to improve education.
Within the state system we need to recognise the complexity involved in delivering education across a diverse continent and across many diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. It is a fact, as Senator Back said to us this morning, that many of the towns in Northern Queensland, the Northern Territory and northern Western Australia do not have a state school. They have no state school at all and rely entirely on the Catholic system. That Catholic system has grown up over many years and become so adapted to suiting the needs of individual communities. It brings values, it brings basics in education and it brings education to the disadvantaged. That must be protected. We understand from Senator Back that the government will be putting a one-year moratorium and a delay on implementing some of the provisions in this legislation thanks to Senator Back and his advocacy. If Catholic schools were to be shut, there would be huge burdens on state systems around this country.
Then Senator Back went on to discuss the system weighted averaging used by Catholic schools in Western Australia, recognising the parents' ability to pay. He compared two schools in the same town, Cathedral Grammar and St Joseph's, with vastly differing fee levels. That is not possible under a government mandated bureaucracy. It is possible under the Catholic system, which shoulders an enormous burden in this country. He explained that system weighted averaging is far superior to the socioeconomic-standing system that the government proposes based on postcodes. He explained that Gonski and another key designer of education both say that the system weighted average is, in fact, far superior. We acknowledge many benefits to what the government is proposing. Thirty per cent of the kids in Catholic schools, according to Senator Back, are not Catholic. They are there by choice, with the exception of schools in northern Australia, where there is no alternative. We must recognise the Catholic system. There are regional and rural towns with no state school system that rely entirely on Catholic schools. Without Catholic schools there would be an enormous increased burden on state schools. Ninety-five per cent of state school capital costs were paid for by parents. That needs to be honoured. The Catholic school system, above all, provides parents with choice.
Vouchers would also provide parents with choice—even wider choice. That would enable many more people to have input into education, into how the schools their kids are attending and being instructed at are run. Then we would have liberation from the Trabant of education. We would have not only diversity of education curricula but diversity of education delivery systems and diversity of educational administrative systems. And, as each one improved, they would be copied by surrounding schools, and we would have an ever-escalating improvement. We would start having the Porsches, the Mercedes, the BMWs of education. We would have a liberation of the human spirit.
The final thing I want to discuss is the need to look at the merits of the German apprenticeship model, which gave us the apprenticeship system—the trade system. As I said, boys—and, indeed, girls—are not built to sit in school all day. Education needs to be for the real world to give people the opportunity to develop the ability to think for themselves. That is real education—not just to pick up the three Rs but the ability to pick up the responsibility for learning, the responsibility for discovery, the responsibility for self-awareness and consciousness, and the responsibility for life. Real education is also about them being able to focus on their interests, not what the state mandates and not what the UN mandates through our central government in this country. We need to stop setting boys up for failure. The German apprenticeship model has proven highly successful.
In America, I was given instruction by a well-known educational expert, Michael Strong. He has had an outstanding career across the country from Alaska through to Hawaii through to the desert states of New Mexico. Michael Strong has developed schools with many different curricula under many different philosophies. He said that in America people talk about sending their kids to university. Only one-third get to university, which means that two-thirds are under the pressure of feeling like they have failed. A university education is not for everyone. We need a country that values education other than at universities. We need a country that sets up boys and girls for trades and careers outside universities. We need to be able to give people a foundation in entrepreneurial activities. That needs a free market. We need to unshackle this country from the clutches of central government—ever-growing central government. We need to stop setting up boys for failure. We need to release the school system for individual initiative. We need to give people choice in schools—not only whether or not they go to a school but what sort of school they go to. We need to really think ahead, but, for now, we are anticipating supporting the government's bill.
( It is impossible to overstate the importance of this bill because, whatever the outcome of our consideration, it will have a far-reaching effect on a generation of children and their educational outcomes. It is not hyperbole to say that the future prospects of a generation of children are in our hands. The importance of education cannot be overstated, because education is one of the strongest tools to tackle poverty, reduce welfare dependency and improve health outcomes. Education is about the future of our children and of our nation. My team and I have taken consideration of what is dubbed Gonski 2.0 very seriously. I commend the work that my colleague in the other place, the member for Mayo, Rebekha Sharkie MP, has done on this. She has done a tremendous amount of work. Her diligence and forensic approach to this are to be commended. She has spoken about the bill in the other place and gave the legislation our cautious support, pending satisfactory resolution of our reservations and the outcome of the Senate inquiry. The majority report of that inquiry predictably said it should be passed, but it did set out various concerns with the bill.
Before I discuss in detail how our reservations have been addressed, I want to congratulate the government for its determination to implement a purer form of the Gonski sector-blind needs based funding model. This took courage because, if you level the playing field, inevitably there will be some losers. But if it goes to the neediest schools, those that deserve it the most, then that is a good outcome. For confirmation that the government's model is closer to the original Gonski review's intent we need look no further than the enthusiastic support from members of the original Gonski review expert panel. Who could forget the image of David Gonski standing alongside the Prime Minister on 2 May and saying he supports this package? He was pleased that the government had adopted the recommendations of a needs based funding model. I look forward to the report of his review into how Commonwealth funding should be invested to improve school and student achievement, because outcomes are very important, but we also need to get the funding model right. Ken Boston, a fellow Gonski review expert panel member, went even further to say recently:
It will be a tragedy if the school funding bill is voted down in the Senate … Five years after the release and subsequent emasculation of the Gonski report, Australia has a rare second chance.
Kathryn Greiner, another member of the original Gonski review expert panel, said:
… it would be a disaster for Australian education if this doesn't pass. This is the first time a government in this country has drawn a line in the sand, removed the funding anomalies and got everybody on the same page.
The former Labor government, when trying to implement the Gonski model—this is not a criticism of them—were racked by needing a whole range of different funding deals to get the states on board. There were something like 27 different agreements. The requirement that no school should lose a dollar hobbled the implementation from the beginning and resulted in a distorted model. Instead of a level playing field, the starting point was each sector's then current funding level, which included historical funding anomalies and past deals. It was built on a flawed foundation of inequitable funding. The special deals done during the negotiation to cajole various states into signing up for Gonski sealed its fate as an inequitable model. It was not needs based and sector blind. Arguably it was not Gonski at all but a knock-off brand trying to look the same as the real thing.
I strongly support the intent of the legislation, but that does not mean there was no room for improvement. I mentioned earlier that we had some real reservations, and I want to cover how the negotiations we have had with the government address these. The first was the time frame. In our view a 10-year transition is too long, particularly for jurisdictions that have been underfunded for the past four years. The reduction of the transitional time frame from 10 years to six years is a big development. It goes much further towards bringing these funding anomalies to an end and putting schools on a more level playing field. If we all agree that reaching the SRS is the goal then getting there faster will benefit more children more quickly, particularly those who have already started secondary school.
Our second reservation was that the legislation as originally drafted only required states and territories to maintain their 2017 funding levels plus indexation. This lets states and territories off the hook too easily, so there must be measures—as I understand it, amendments will be tabled that will ensure real accountability on the part of states and territories to reach their share of the SRS by 2023. That will ensure accountability of the new funding model. That is fair, and if the states do not place a priority on appropriately funding their schools then they should be exposed.
The introduction of a national school resourcing body, something that the Australian Greens have long advocated, and I congratulate them for advocating, is also a very welcome addition. We need to have enhanced transparency and accountability, so I strongly support an independent body that can monitor all elements of the needs based funding model and suggest improvements. For example, I support that one of the first tasks is to examine the appropriateness of the current SES determination methodology. I know that the Catholic sector has been concerned about this, and I congratulate Senator Chris Back for his advocacy in this regard.
I have previously stated publicly that this might not be the full Gonski, but it is still the Gonski. At that time I was drawn into the focus on the quantum of funding, not the methodology. My position is now a bit more nuanced. Earlier, I alluded to the fact that Labor's Gonski was not really a Gonski at all, but rather a more expensive knock-off from a flawed methodology. I understand why there has been so much focus on the debate about the quantum of funding and not the methodology, but we can do both. If you scratch beneath the surface, the model that we saw before perpetuated historical funding inequities. The extra funding that Labor promised would have been allocated unfairly.
Labor and the AEU have described this as a $22 billion cut. The $22 billion was Labor's funding promise, but they have not had to follow through on it. My colleague Rebekha Sharkie describes this as comparing apples with imaginary pears. Let us be clear: we are talking about $22 billion worth of imaginary pears. With the compression of the time frame to six years the difference has been reduced to $17 billion of imaginary funding. It is also important to note that the differences in the funding level between Labor's much-lauded years five and six of Gonski and the proposal is less than six per cent.
I am a pragmatist, as are my colleagues. We have a bill in front of us that will provide, in effect, $23 billion of extra funding to our schools over the next 10 years with the compression of getting up to the SRS standard within six years. I am not going to vote against a bill that provides extra funding and addresses the inequities of the failed Gonski implementation previously, given that David Gonski himself and his panel members believe it would be a grave mistake not to pass this bill. If the Labor Party is still committed to providing an extra $22 billion in funding, they can take that to the next election and it can be an election issue.
I will talk about what this means for South Australia in due course in the committee stage. I believe that this is a very welcome bill in terms of the additional funding. I believe that if we knock this off, if we do not vote for this bill, it will lead to fundamental inequities and inequalities in the funding system being perpetuated. This is about getting the methodology right. The fact that David Gonski and the members of his panel are so enthusiastically fact in favour of this legislation is fundamental.
I support this bill, as do my colleagues, with the improvements that we have been able to negotiate. I note that other crossbenchers have been working in good faith to improve this legislation. This bill will also lead to much more increased transparency, which is fundamental. That is something that I will speak about in the committee stages of this bill. In closing, I support the second reading stages of this bill. There are amendments that will even further improve it. This will be a good outcome for students around the country. I do not want to the perfect to be the enemy of the good, because this has very many good elements. It should be passed.
I rise to speak on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017, which provides for needs based school funding. This debate is not just about school funding, though. It is about our children. It is about equal opportunity and it is about our future. Today I speak on this bill to remind my colleagues to broaden their thinking beyond the here and now. In fact, I am asking my colleagues to think beyond the next 10 years. Constant squabbling amongst ourselves over issues as important as education funding, making changes to the education system every three or four years, only damages our children and, therefore, Australia's future.
The Liberal government would have had an easier time negotiating with colleagues had the government included the opposition and the crossbench and the key stakeholders in the conversation a lot sooner. As I read through the submissions to the committee, the one thing most submissions had in common was a concern that there had been little to no consultation. I am thankful Minister Birmingham took time out of his busy schedule to fly to Tasmania to hear my concerns, but, if the schools and Minister Birmingham's colleagues in this place had been kept in the loop while this bill was put together, it would have received feedback sooner, allowing the minister to draft a solid bill.
This lack of consultation speaks to larger cultural issues within the Liberal government's ranks. The feedback I receive on a daily basis from key industry stakeholders on a variety of bills is that this government does not consult. This is a pattern of behaviour that has been allowed to develop, turning the Liberal government into its own worst enemy. Its consistent refusal to consult with key industry stakeholders and with its opposition and crossbench colleagues creates a mad rush to get the bill passed, as we have experienced this week. Instead of blaming our chaotic or feral Senate when bills do not pass, perhaps the Liberal government should sit down with its colleagues in the Senate to discuss our concerns well before bills are presented to the House. This prevents political games and mistakes being made. The point of a democracy is that all views are represented in parliament. As long as the Liberal government ignores those views, it will continue to have problems in the Senate. This culture of last-minute negotiations and decision-making is not conducive to considered and well-thought-out legislation and gives senators very little time to draft and present amendments to make for much better legislation and to give us a fair go.
Labor is not interested in this Gonski debate either. For me as an Independent, it is frustrating to see funds invested into a lengthy evidence based report and for the government of the day to bastardise the recommendations or cherry-pick recommendations to suit its political agenda. It is devastating to see governments play with the futures of our children, and therefore the future of our nation, for political gain. It is ironic that Labor proudly claims to roll out the full Gonski when it was the Labor government that compromised the true Gonski.
Do not get me wrong. I gave Labor the chance and the time to see Gonski through. A few years ago, I was approached by the Education Union when I expressed my disappointment in student outcomes, especially in Tasmania. They begged me to give it a couple more years. Well, I have done that. Oh, dear, I have done that! The NAPLAN results show there is no measurable improvement for Tasmania—absolutely none. It has not moved up a notch. In fact, there is negligible improvement across the nation. A media statement released by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority said:
… in recent years NAPLAN results have largely plateaued.
It asked the question, 'Is this good enough?' This is a good question. What are the major parties' ambitions for our children? Is the word 'okay' good enough, or should we have higher expectations for the young people who will eventually lead this nation? The education we give our children directly impacts nation-building and Australia's future. I would like to see our children reach their potential to be effective and ensure Australia continues to be the great country that it is. We now know that throwing enormous amounts of money at education is not the answer, but you do not throw out a broken model until you know the new one is better.
While I look forward to seeing a truly needs based, equal opportunity funding rollout, it still is not the answer to improving student outcomes. The answer lies in our teachers, who work hard and try their best but are not always provided with the support or resources to explore teaching students in a capacity that supports students' individual learning needs. As a start, the teaching degree must be treated with more respect. After all, teaching is circular in nature. If a teacher is taught well, that teacher is more likely to teach well. By providing a high-quality teaching degree, we encourage that sense of respect, and our teaching students will fulfil greater potential. By asking our students to complete postgraduate study, we create a greater knowledge base from which to teach our children.
While our teachers are studying at university, it should be a requirement that, on top of their practical work, they volunteer as a teacher aide every day, five days a week, from 10 to two. It is time for on-the-job training to begin again. We have lost this, and we are suffering because of this. Get them out of those universities in their second year, and get them on the job. During my time as a senator many schools have approached me about their need for more teacher aides and agonised over the lack of funding. Well, there is your answer: get them out of those universities and get them into schools. They will get on-the-job training and mentoring all in one. We are getting two for the price of one here. If university students were required to volunteer to be a teacher's aide they would not only receive real world experiences and develop mentor relationships with experienced teachers; they would also observe a variety of class behaviours and incidents. This would give them the tools and experience they need to deal with such behaviours as new teachers when they graduate. In addition, the schools and their students will receive the one-on-one support they need in the classroom without breaking the budget.
I emphasise that some things must be beyond politics. The Labor Party and the Liberal Party must stop playing games with issues that are vital to our country and our people. Education and health must be exempt from the political games that seem to be entrenched in this place. The good of the people and the future of Australia should be treated with greater consideration and sincerity.
I want to speak about children with disabilities. In the past—whether it be Veterans' Affairs or the NDIS—you have always underestimated the cost. I do not blame you for this; many of you have probably not experienced being sick and down and out, and what that costs. When you have not been on both sides of that game you underestimate terribly, and that is where you run into trouble. I want to make sure that our kids with disabilities are fully funded at all times. I do not want to see the divide in this country made any greater than it already is. That worries me terribly. If you cannot get this right in this model then I will be coming forward on the NDIS. I will be brutally honest with you: there are gaps in that, and I will push student funding for disabled students really hard and really fast. I want them well catered for and I want them to get the opportunity to be in normal classrooms if they are able to. It is not only great for them; it is also great for those students who do not have disabilities. They learn compassion. They learn how to deal with these matters. It gives them coping mechanisms for the rest of their lives. Everybody wins out with this. So I am really having a good look at this.
When it comes to the Catholic education system, I hope that they will continue on the same trajectory they are on right now until the review is over. I hope that what I have been told in that matter is the truth: for the next 12 to 18 months they will maintain everything they already have.
I rise to speak on the Australian Education Amendment Bill. Around this time last year, before the federal election, I travelled 11,250 kilometres around country Victoria and New South Wales, and not once was the word 'Gonski' mentioned in that time. Of course, in recent weeks here that is all we have heard and in the past few hours that is all we have heard. I do not intend to speak very long; I just want to say that I will be endorsing, supporting and voting for this bill. When I first heard of the Gonski amendments, I had some doubts—and I think they were legitimate ones—especially relating to Labor's scare campaign about $22 billion; they turned me off with that. In the election campaign, I was talking about justice issues. As a senator, I am now forced to vote on education and other issues which were not part of my party platform and not what people put me here for; they put me here to do such things as a passport ban for paedophiles. But I am in this position and I may be one of those who ends up swinging this vote one way or the other. Frankly, the $22 billion Labor scare campaign was a lie. I do not like either side when you lie to me. I watched those TV commercials and talked to various people on the opposition bench. It was like me coming in here today and making a promise that, in 2045, I will give $60 billion to gambling casinos—because I am in favour of gambling—and then a new government comes in and decides they will cut $50 billion of that $60 billion and will not give it. So I then run a TV campaign saying the government are bastards; they have cut $50 billion from James Packer's coffers—$50 billion that was not there in the first place.
Now, I have said I will support this. I have had meetings with many interested parties. I sat down with two very inspiring mothers from the Broken Bay diocese to listen to their concerns about the SES and the discrepancies in it, and I have had assurances that these things will be looked at. Those women came all the way here and paid their own hotel bills because they are concerned about their kids. I am pleased to announce that I am going to support the Gonski bill, with the changes that I and others from the crossbench have actively advocated. I am proud to see that the changes will come into effect more quickly for those schools that so desperately need extra support and need it now. I am proud that an additional $4 billion or so will be invested in the Gonski program.
I am also pleased that we will be holding the state and territory governments to account to make sure that they uphold their end of the bargain in the years going ahead. I am pleased that the 10-year plan will be pushed back to six or seven years—six years, I think. I am also very pleased to acknowledge the Greens' idea, which is to have an independent body to provide a very much needed layer of transparency. I know the Greens have had to fight amongst themselves, but for some of these changes they have advocated very strongly indeed. So, I will be supporting this bill. I think we will get some extra money for Victorian schools. The money will come faster than was planned, better than was planned. It is a needs based scheme. And before I sit down, to steal from Neil Armstrong's apocryphal story about what he really said when he walked on the moon: good luck, Mr Gonski!
I thank all senators who have contributed to this debate and I commend the bill to the Senate.
The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Collins be agreed to.
The question is that the bill be read a second time.
Having not had the opportunity to make a couple of comments at the closing stages of the second reading debate, I do want to reflect upon the vote that was just taken. I am very pleased that the Senate has voted to bring this important bill into the committee stage, because that is a demonstration that this parliament is working and is committed to delivering the type of consistent, fair and needs based funding that Australian schools deserve. It is a demonstration that the members of this Senate have heard the arguments over the last few weeks and months, which have been clear-cut in terms of what the model is and what David Gonski himself and Gonski panellists like Kathryn Greiner and Ken Boston have advocated, and many other independent experts have argued for—and that is, that we are delivering a fairer model of needs based funding that is more consistent than the one the Labor Party put in place previously and which will strip away the 27 different special deals and disparate agreements that the Labor Party had in place.
What we are putting in place now delivers increased support to Australian schools—$18.6 billion of additional funding that the Turnbull government committed this year—which will be distributed fairly and according to need, and will be used to drive real reform across the Australian education landscape and drive the types of reform that will ensure that schools, whether they are government schools, Catholic systemic schools or independent schools, receive the funding relevant to need for their individual circumstances. That, of course, is exactly what the Gonski report has been on about for a long period of time. Six years ago we saw the Gonski report handed down, which, at that time, demonstrated that there was an argument for putting in place a more consistent model of needs based funding around Australia. The Gonski report recommended that there should be a base level of funding for all Australian students, a schooling resource standard, that should, in the case of non-government education, be discounted according to the capacity of that school community to contribute. It recommended that there should be loadings for additional support for students with disability, for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, for Indigenous students, for students from language backgrounds other than English and indeed for smaller rural, regional and remote schools. All of those factors are reflected in the bill the Turnbull government has before us and in the model we are seeking to implement.
But the Gillard government, as it was then, rather than going forward and deciding that they would truly work to adopt the Gonski model, decided that they could not possibly apply fewer models or a consistent funding model for Australian schools. Instead, as has been noted by Gonski panellist himself Ken Boston, what we saw was Mr Shorten, as the then education minister, and prime ministers Gillard and Rudd running around the country, stitching up different deals in what was described as 'a corruption' of the Gonski model. The Turnbull government has come to the rescue of the Gonski model of needs based funding. The Turnbull government is implementing what was envisioned would be the case, and we are doing so regardless of state boundaries and sectoral differences in education. We are putting in place a funding model that ensures that that schooling resource standard with its base funding and additional loadings is applied consistently right across the country.
We know from evidence that individual schools at present can receive thousands of dollars less in one state relative to another state, even if they have exactly the same levels of need within their school systems. That, of course, is a completely unfair and unacceptable circumstance. Why should a school student in Western Australia be treated at a disadvantage to a school student in New South Wales by the national government—the Australian government—just because they happen to be in a different state or territory? Why should a student in the Catholic education system in Tasmania be treated at a disadvantage to a student in the Catholic education system in Victoria just because they are in a different state or territory? What we want to ensure is that all are treated according to the need of their individual school and their individual circumstances and based on a consistent approach and methodology by the Commonwealth government.
What we have proposed to the Senate is a 10-year transition period for this. I anticipate, as we move through the debate, that there may be some variations to that and that those variations, if implemented, could see even greater benefits for school systems of all stripes. I anticipate that the types of amendments that have been mooted in the discussions with various members of the crossbench—and I thank them for their engagement—will deliver an even greater rate of funding growth in a shorter period of time to government schools across Australia. They will deliver an even greater rate of funding growth in an even shorter period of time to Catholic education systems across Australia, and they will deliver an even greater rate of funding growth in a shorter period of time to the neediest independent non-government schools in Australia.
Importantly, we are also looking at proposals that structurally would not change the long-term consequences for the budget and that structurally would still ensure that, although we will get to a consistent, fair and needs based model of funding in a shorter period of time, the long-term impact will be as the Turnbull government's proposals originally forecast. But it will provide faster support if these proposals are adopted by the Senate.
I want to reflect on the thoughtful engagement and contributions to date from the various elements of the crossbench. The Greens have been thoughtful contributors in the public debate on this issue, and I appreciate the fact that they have continued those discussions. I would welcome them continuing those discussions further to ensure that we have and will deliver needs based funding across Australia. The Australian Greens have shown the willingness that the Labor Party has lacked to actually adopt a sensible approach to these reforms.
We have no confidence in you, Simon—that's why!
Senator Collins and the noisy voices on the Labor Party side decided that just saying no was the best thing. Why have they done that? They have done that because they would much rather play politics with this issue than actually get an agreement and actually get needs based funding. What has become apparent with the Labor Party's handling of school reform is that it has never been, for them, about actually applying needs based funding consistently across Australia. It has been about using that as a political wedge instead. For Labor, it has always been about, 'How much more money can we spend and how do we use that as a political wedge?' Through this debate, they have been exposed. Their hypocrisy has been exposed and the reality that they were never genuine all along has been exposed. For them, it is about buying off different constituencies through special deals and putting in place something that ultimately serves their electoral advantage rather than the advantage of Australian school students.
Our intention is to ensure that there is a real model in place that does deliver for Australian school students—a model that delivers according to their need and treats them consistently. But, importantly, also, it is a model of reform that looks to how it is we can guarantee that education investment also gets the best possible results in the future, because it is really critical that, as we continue to see a growth in funding for schools right around Australia, we also see that that is invested in the best possible way. That is why the Turnbull government was delighted that David Gonski himself agreed to engage and to undertake a further body of work, the review, to achieve excellence in Australian schools—to ensure that the real problems and challenges in our schools are addressed and that the record growing funding that the Turnbull government will provide is actually record growing funding used to best effect of ensuring that our schools get the support they need, but also that they use those dollars as carefully and wisely as is possible to ensure educational advancement of their students in those schools around Australia.
That report will be critical to ensuring that next year states and territories in receipt of the second Gonski report, which identifies evidence based reforms and opportunities to maximise educational excellence in Australia, actually sign on to deliver those types of standards and reforms. We know that teacher quality is an essential component, the most important ingredient of school performance and in-school factors. We equally know that parental engagement is the most important other factor. We need to make sure that with additional funding flowing into the system we lift the quality of teachers, we enhance the engagement of parents, we ensure the relevance of the curriculum, we apply the support that is there to arrest what has been in some cases a stagnation and in others a decline of Australia's overall educational performance, and that this additional funding is used to the best possible effect for the future. I look forward to seeing many different parties engage with that second Gonski review.
I want to reflect on what it is that we are expecting state and territory governments to do as a result of these reforms. Our expectation is that state and territory governments must maintain the funding they have committed into their schools in order for additional funding to flow into the future. We want to make sure that there is no wriggle room for the states or territories to cost-shift, as has been the case previously; that there is certainty in relation to those state and territory governments and making sure that they pull their weight. In recent years we have seen at times that as the federal government has given more to state and territory governments for the neediest public schools in Australia, the states and territories, rather than investing that and ensuring there is additional support, have instead simply withdrawn an element of the funding support that they provide, which has provided no net advantage to those needy schools. We want make sure that if the Commonwealth is doing as we propose and increasing support, then the states and territories maintain their real effort as well. Through the mechanisms in this legislation and through our reforms we will achieve that.
We also want to ensure that states and territories are accountable for whether or not they are putting in fair support for their schools. Our approach of applying the same formula consistently across the country will allow people to hold state and territory governments to account and for those state and territory governments to justify their decisions about relative spending. The estimates are that with the Commonwealth government providing a 20 per cent share of the Schooling Resource Standard across the country consistently, that would see that school resource standing formula met in Western Australia and the ACT, and very nearly met in Tasmania; that South Australia would receive around 95 per cent of that standard; but that some other states and territories would fall short. We are keen to ensure that the transparency of this means that constituent bodies in those states or territories can question their state governments about why it is that they do not invest as much as another state or Territory, and those state governments can explain their rationale and in doing so justify that to their constituencies. For too long now there has been this notion of continually shifting the pressure and the blame onto Canberra in relation to school funding. Our model puts in place something that ensures consistency but also proposes what is a fair share of support from Canberra and then makes clear that is up to the states and territories to take responsibility in their systems, as the Constitution dictates. So by applying that type of approach we are confident that we can ensure state and territory governments themselves also have some accountability for their responsibility in school systems that they have run throughout the history of Federation.
But I want to emphasise to the Senate the government's gratitude for those who have supported entry into the committee stage. I want to emphasise that we are committed—
Progress reported.
Madam Deputy President, I have a point of order. Could you perhaps get back to the Senate how standing orders apply during a second reading debate as to who gets the call. I would say that I was on my feet before Senator Cormann in the second reading debate and you saw me on my feet. I do not understand why I did not get the call. I understand there is some discretion. Could you clarify that for me, please.
Certainly, Senator Whish-Wilson. Both you and the minister stood and the minister was given the call because that was to call that I made. He was on his feet first—that was the call I made.
Today I want to raise a number of issues that are particularly important to my constituency, which is the state of Queensland. But I particularly want to refer to the north, where I am based. Unfortunately I am now the only senator in Queensland based in the north of the state. Some of my colleagues in the LNP are based in Central Queensland, on the Darling Downs and on the Sunshine Coast, but all the rest of the senators representing Queensland are based in Brisbane. I regret that the one other senator who for many, many years represented the north of the state, Senator Jan McLucas, is no longer with us. I did not always agree with Senator McLucas, but at least she was a passionate advocate for the north. Unfortunately in some dastardly deal within the Labor Party she lost her preselection spot to a union hack from Brisbane who now lives in Brisbane and pretends that he has an office on the Gold Coast.
As a proud North Queenslander and the only representative of North Queensland in the Senate, I want to talk about Adani. I want to talk about the wonderful Great Barrier Reef that all of us in Queensland but particularly in the north are so very proud of. I want to talk about jobs and small business in the north. In Townsville at the moment regrettably there is the largest unemployment figure in the country. Youth unemployment is at a catastrophic rate. It is essential that we do something to boost the economy of the North, particularly Townsville, not just for the jobs but also for small business, which is struggling in that area. That is why I want to talk about Adani.
But before I do that I want to congratulate Mr Tim Nicholls, the state leader of the Liberal National Party in the Queensland parliament and the alternative premier, who in the last few days has made some very significant announcements for the north in general and for Townsville in particular. I am delighted that Mr Nicholls has committed an incoming Liberal National Party government to within 100 days of taking office getting the approvals right for a coal-fired baseload power station somewhere in the north. That will of course utilise the cheapest form of power and the cheapest form of electricity that Australia possesses. If we have a new coal-fired power station in the north, it will mean Australians can relish that cheaper power that nowadays China, India and other places to which we export our black coal are experiencing. It will put Australia back in the game.
Just this morning Mr Nicholls announced a $225 million commitment to address the critical water situation in Townsville which has existed over a long period of time. The state parliament seems to be oblivious to the problems of water shortages in Townsville. Indeed, regrettably, now Townsville has three state Labor members and a Labor federal member. None of them seem to be interested in water. The state Labor Party in its budget promised in the never-never that they would make some money available. It is in their out years with no real commitment to anything, whereas Mr Nicholls today has committed that amount of money. Mr Nicholls has committed an incoming LNP government to funding within 100 days of being elected a definite project to fix Townsville's long-term water shortages.
I want to briefly talk about Adani and what a huge impact that will have on jobs and confidence in Queensland. It is so important that the Labor mayor of Townsville is one of its greatest supporters. The Queensland Premier says she is a supporter and has said some things that would demonstrate that. Unfortunately, her deputy and other members of the Labor Party, including the supposed Minister Assisting the Premier on North Queensland, Coralee O'Rourke, and the supposed federal member—I say supposed because there is still in my mind some doubt as to the validity of her election, but more on that some other time. But they say they are sort of for Adani because they know the huge support for Adani in Townsville but then have all these qualifications. 'But it's got to stack up commercially.' 'But it's got to stack up environmentally.' We know, of course, that the Adani project has more environmental conditions than any other development project any time in Australia's history, and Adani will do that.
But it will provide real jobs, and those real jobs have started already with the announcement of headquarters in Townsville where 500 people will be employed within the next period of time. Unfortunately, the Labor government, while having, it seems, two bob each way, really has internal dissent over this project. I notice that the state Labor government has granted a green activist group some $600,000 to support the Environmental Defenders' Office, which has sought a judicial review of the Abbot Point coal terminal expansion. The Labor Party cannot have it both ways. They either support it or they do not, and funding these radical outfits to try to hold up Adani makes one doubt Labor's commitment. But I am hopeful that, with a change of government in Queensland, Adani will go ahead.
I did want to mention more about that. There are supposedly some protests against Adani. I mentioned in this chamber previously that, when we went to the official opening of the headquarters in Townsville, there was a massive number of five protesters outside the door. As we left that an hour later, that had swelled to eight. There was a northern development conference in Cairns just yesterday where people were talking about, amongst other things, Adani and the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, and again there was a huge protest at that particular conference. Five people turned up to protest the Adani proposal. I can understand that, because I know the people of North Queensland, who understand these issues, who need the jobs, who understand the barrier reef, have no interest in these radical movements to try to stop that project.
I hear, Madam Acting Deputy President Reynolds, that, in your state of Western Australia, GetUp! and the Greens are mounting this massive campaign against marginal Liberal seats—and on what cause? It is on Adani and the Barrier Reef. Why are they doing it in Western Australia? Of course, people in Western Australia are a long way from the Barrier Reef and they are a long way from Adani. They do not know, as we in Queensland know, that this mine is nowhere near the Barrier Reef. In fact, it is on the other side of the Great Dividing Range. How water can travel uphill is one of the 'fake news' stories that the Greens and GetUp! continue to propagate.
The amount of fake news that the Greens political party and GetUp! continue to propagate is just amazing. Somehow the opening of this mine is going to destroy the world's climate! Yet Dr Finkel himself, the Chief Scientist, has said that, even if you shut Australia down completely and cut our emissions by 1.3 per cent, it would have virtually no impact on the changing climate of the world. So the fake news continues to come out from the Greens political party and GetUp! All the time they do that, they are destroying the jobs and livelihoods of the hundreds of thousands of people in the north of the state who I represent and who I will continue to represent by trying to support, in every way I can, these job-creating projects, like Adani and like the water supply and coal-fired power station Mr Nicholls has announced, for the benefit of Queensland and the north in particular.
Today I rise to highlight the work done by volunteers in Australia and to make a plea on their behalf. This afternoon I will have the honour of tabling a petition from Volunteering Australia with over 3,700 signatures. They are calling on the federal government to retain designated funding for volunteering support services in our nation. We on this side of the chamber acknowledge that we need to ensure that our community sector, which includes volunteering, is properly funded so that communities and families around the country can thrive.
I do not need to convince people in this place—or perhaps I do—about the extent to which volunteering plays a vital role in our country. Did you know that about 5.8 million Australians, or 31 per cent of the population, volunteer? This makes an estimated $290 billion contribution to our economic and social good. These volunteers support our communities in education, emergency services, sports and recreation, and social services, which in turn make our communities stronger. I have had the privilege of working with volunteer support services and meeting a diverse range of volunteers to listen to their concerns about what the Commonwealth is doing.
This level of effort around our nation—that is, 5.8 million people volunteering—does not happen by accident. Volunteers rely on volunteering support services to ensure that their organisations can continue to support the community. Volunteer management and support services provide vital support to volunteer organisations by recruiting and sourcing volunteers and helping to train and support their volunteers. These organisations support other organisations to make sure the volunteering experience is positive and safe.
The Department of Social Services are undertaking a redesign of many of their grant programs, including the Strengthening Communities activity. Currently, there is a direct stream of funding for volunteer support. The proposed redesign, however, rolls a range of programs together, and the current proposal removes the direct stream of funding for volunteer management, with no guarantee that these services will continue to be funded. They would need to compete with direct service providers for scarce funding. This is simply not good enough. It was confirmed in estimates in March that this is what the government was considering doing. Happily, in our most recent estimates it was confirmed that the government is reconsidering this terrible proposal.
It is critical that this government listens to Australia's volunteers, volunteer services and the many thousands of people who have signed the petition that I will table later today. Protecting a dedicated stream of funding is absolutely critical to our nation's volunteering effort—of those 5.8 million Aussies—an effort that supports our community fabric and our local environment. Everything from Meals on Wheels to mentoring and visiting our aged and infirm at home, environmental rehabilitation, local arts and history, animal welfare, local sports, youth activities—you name it, and more.
The effects of the redesign would be enormous on communities that rely on the volunteering support programs that this funding delivers. It would leave them without the capacity to support their volunteers and to connect new volunteers through to volunteering efforts that really want them.
I recently met with representatives of the Peel Volunteer Resource Centre in the electorate of Canning. It was clear to me the critical role that their volunteer support service plays. I heard from organisations at the meeting how they rely on the resource centre for the recruitment of volunteers and also for the management of their organisations—things like finding board members, filling out complicated paperwork, and helping with things like working-with-children checks. One of the volunteers I spoke to, Carol Carter, spoke of her experience as a coordinator from the K9 Rescue Group, which is serviced by the resource centre. Carrol and K9 Rescue Group relies on the Peel Volunteer Resource Centre to recruit volunteers to the organisation, which services some five pounds in their local region. They have worked with the local volunteering support service to find volunteers, healthy and enthusiastic committee members, and a treasurer, who helps the organisation with their administrative obligations. Carrol shared with me her real worry that if these changes go ahead and the Peel Volunteer Resource Centre is no longer funded, her organisation would have to spend more time recruiting volunteers and meeting administrative obligations, rather than caring for sick foster animals. That would be a national tragedy, with thousands more animal welfare tragedies around our nation if these kinds of services were to go.
This story, like many others, highlights the critical role of volunteering support services in promoting safe, effective and sustainable volunteering programs, and indeed the need to the federal government to retain support for these organisations—that is, through designated funding for volunteer support services.
The Canning Volunteer Gateway, by Volunteering Western Australia, shared other important stories with me. Elizabeth Borrello, who is coordinator of the Canning Volunteer Gateway, explained to me that people currently are directed to visit a website for information when they want to volunteer. However, she explained to me that for many people this is quite tough to navigate. Many prospective volunteers are not necessarily computer savvy, or they may lack confidence or language skills, and a face-to-face chat is what gets them over the line to start their volunteering journey. It can even help them overcome anxiety and to reconnect with their community, leading to things like future employment pathways.
If you speak to anyone in our nation who volunteers, they will tell you of the immense personal satisfaction that it brings them to be able to give back to the community. They enjoy the difference it makes to others, but most of all the difference they make to others brings great personal fulfilment to them. It has been wonderful to hear those stories from volunteers around the nation. Indeed, I will use this opportunity to encourage people to lend a hand in the local communities by volunteering.
With over 3,700 people having signed the petition, it is clear that there is support in the community for volunteering organisations. This reinforces that volunteering is a tower of strength in our community. I really want to give a shout-out to Volunteering Australia representatives who are in the chamber today. It is critical that we retain designated funding for volunteering in our nation, so let us keep in mind those volunteers in our states and territories working hard to do things like maintaining our local wetlands, keeping a local sporting club running, delivering meals on wheels to people in need, and so much more.
Today I commit to continuing to work with the volunteering sector to hold the current government to account on these important issues, because Australia absolutely needs its volunteers. We are so lucky that so many in our community are prepared to give freely of their time, expertise and labour to make our community and our nation a better place, but they cannot do it without support and professional help. It is really important that designated funding for volunteer support services be retained. It is time for the government to make sure that our nation's volunteers are supported and to heed the call to protect our volunteering support organisations.
It is not often that I stand up here with a good news story, but today I do have a good news story. It is about Save the Children, who run a fantastic program in Armadale. As some people in this place know, I went to Armadale High School, so it is an area I know well. I lived in suburbs around there for quite a long time. Save the Children have been running a an intervention project at Armadale, working with children and young teenagers to stop these kids from getting into trouble with the law and ending up in juvenile detention. Why are they doing that? Sadly, in 2016 a report identified that one in four of the kids in juvenile detention in the Perth area were from that southern corridor. The report went on to further identify that almost 50 per cent of those young kids who end up in juvenile detention reoffend and end up back in the system—and so begins a cycle of youth detention and then jail. Of course many of these kids are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids, and indeed many of them are local Noongar kids.
Save the Children has been running an intervention program out in Armadale for a very long time. It did it initially under an initiative that the Rudd-Gillard government put in place, where funds were directed to intervention. Of course we all remember that horrific first budget of Mr Abbott in 2014, and those funds were slashed—overnight they were gone. The intervention program that Save the Children was running encouraged kids to come in off the streets and play basketball and get involved. Save the Children works in a partnership—talking to kids, talking to their parents, talking to local elders about what they want to see in their local area, and also respecting the point of view that they bring. Governance is by local Noongar elders and also young people who are emerging leaders. It really is a holistic program working in absolute partnership with local people.
What did the Abbott government to do with Save the Children's funding? They put it into cameras. That funding was for working with local kids, keeping them out of detention, and that funding was then put into cameras which really would have led to just picking kids up off the street and putting more of them into detention. Save the Children were presented with this funding crisis and it looked like their project was going to close. I helped them agitate with the Barnett government to put funding into the program, as did the member for Bassendean, Mr Dave Kelly, the shadow minister for youth at the time. Both of us tried to get funding from a range of sources to make sure this very valuable program did not close, but to no avail—our representations fell on the deaf ears of the Barnett government. It was too busy wasting money on iconic programs to look at putting money into where it was needed. We saw the number of kids in detention in WA grow disproportionately. And, of course, we all know the sad and sorry state in Western Australia, and indeed many places across the country, where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids are more likely to end up in youth detention and finish school.
Armadale council came on board, Save the Children put some of their own funding in, and the program hobbled along. Thankfully, the McGowan Labor government was elected this year and one of the first things it has done is commit almost $1 million to that intervention program. I am really pleased to stand here today and say the good work Save the Children is doing up in the Armadale corridor will continue. We really do need to tackle the problem of young people going into detention. We do not want to just lock them up and throw away the keys, because we know that leads to really poor outcomes. We need to actually work in partnership.
I meet regularly with Save the Children. They do wonderful work across the community in Western Australia, as I am sure they do across the country. They did a report a couple of years ago which really sticks in my mind. They interviewed very young children aged from seven upwards. One of the things you often read about when you look at letters page The West Australian is people complaining about young kids mucking up on trains. So what Save the Children did was go out and interview kids who ride the trains between Armadale and Perth. Many of them congregate at Burswood Station, which is my local station, because that is adjacent to Crown Casino. They muck up, as kids do. They get on the trains and they are noisy, and sometimes their behaviour is challenging. So Save the Children gave cameras to those children who ride the train—some of them as young as seven—and asked them to take photos of what was in their neighbourhood, where they spent their time. Out of that, Save the Children produced a book of the kids stories—and it really is horrific. The main reason these kids were riding trains was not to be smart alecs or to show off or to intimidate other people but, very sadly, because it was safer to be on the trains at night than in their homes. Isn't that appalling—safer being on the trains than in their homes! At home, there might have been drug abuse and domestic violence. So these kids saw the trains as a safe haven—somewhere they could get together with their mates. Sure, they muck around; that is what kids do.
The community of Perth were seeing that as antisocial behaviour—and in some aspects it was—but no-one was getting to the root cause of why those children were on the trains. Sadly, Save the Children tried to get money from the state government to position a youth van at Burswood, where most of the kids hang out, and try and get those kids into the Armadale program. Sadly, again, the Barnett government was at that point much more interested in locking up kids than trying to work with them to get them off the trains, working with their families to get them back into a family situation, and respecting that those kids are our future and that working with them is a much better outcome than locking them up.
Mr Kelly, who was still then the shadow youth minister, and I tried hard to get some funding for that program. Again, we were not successful. That is still a program that has merit, and I hope Save the Children still think it is a valuable program to run. I think having a van that can talk kids to get to the issue of what has got them onto the trains and divert them into something safer than riding the trains is a good program. Some of those kids took photos of meth labs. The alarm bells should be ringing for us. It is a publicly available document, beautifully produced, with the kids' stories, but I think very young kids taking a photo of a meth lab and seeing it as part of their everyday environment is shocking. The fact that it is happening in my home state is appalling. I am a southern suburbs person. I grew up in Gosnells. I went to high school in Armadale. I have always lived south of the river. I currently live in Lathlain. I know those suburbs well. I really do hope that we can do something about it, because it troubles me deeply that young kids think that taking a photograph of a meth lab that is part of their community is an okay thing to do.
I commend the McGowan government for providing this money to Save the Children. I know they will do a terrific job. They are already doing a terrific job. I commend the Armadale council, the Gosnells council and the Belmont council for being involved in this youth partnership program in the southern suburbs. I hope that this will be just a small start to ensure that our kids, our southern suburbs kids, stop going into youth detention, stop reoffending and instead have the bright future that they so richly deserve as our future leaders.
There will be some people breathing a sigh of relief that this could be the last time that I address the question of the live export trade, but I just scratch my head in wonder at the sensibility of some people in the other place. There are a couple of them, including the member for Kennedy—the North Queensland cattle industry—who are trying to pass a bill to make it illegal to market meat as 'Australian' if the cattle are slaughtered overseas. So the cattle are Australian when they are born, they are Australian when they are bred—but when they go overseas? It is a bit like sending a motorcar manufactured in Australia to the Middle East. The wheels are put on the car when it gets to Dubai and it is driven overseas. That is not an Australian car, simply because a part of it has been undertaken overseas. That is the sort of nonsense which we are dealing with.
For the last time, I want to confirm a number of points that I have made in the past so that people understand this issue clearly. There is always going to be a tax on the export of livestock from this country. I want to put on record that of the 109 countries that export live animals around the world, there has only ever been one—and there is only one now, and that is Australia—that invests and has invested in people, in training, in welfare and in education right across the board to ensure that the standards of husbandry, management and nutrition, all of which go towards welfare, are improved. Again, I want to remind people—including all the activists, even the RSPCA, which ought to be called the 'royal society for the protection of animals in Australia', because it has no interest in the protection of animals outside of this country—that when Australian standards are improved for Australian livestock, do you know what happens? The standards lift for all the locally-bred animals, as well as the animals that come from many of those other countries. I have given demonstrations in Doha, during the festival of Eid in 2012, where I indicated that instead of animals going home in the boot of vehicles, they were being processed. The people who bought them got a number, watched the animal being processed and took it home in a plastic bag. What happened to all of the other animals from other countries, Mr Acting Deputy President? You guessed it. It was just simply an exam with only one option. The same things happen in Indonesia—locally bred cattle are being processed according to humane Australian standards.
I want to go a bit further from my own experience as a livestock veterinarian. In Australia, there is the feed-lotting of animals, road transport to the ports and the shipping. Again, the country that leads the world in standards of on-board welfare for animals is Australia. It is the old story—and this is one of the problems: as a human beings, we always like to humanise animals. Would I like to stand in a pen with 54 other sheep between here and the Middle East? No, I would not. Therefore, it is wrong. We must never get to that stage. We have got to look at survivors. We have got to look at how the welfare standards in Australia lead the world, the feed-lotting in our target markets and, of course, the processing. I will be the first to say that processing standards have not always been the best—but which is the only country that has continually raised standards? Australia. The stunning of cattle is a prime example. Those are the points I want to make in that space.
I do not want to dwell on the shocking ban of live exports back in 2011, but I stood in this place and I said at that time: 'Heaven forbid the calves from last year should be on ships going to Indonesia, because the calves from this year, along with their mothers in calf, are competing on the rangeland for the food. I made the prediction in 2011; you remember it well, Acting Deputy President Sterle. I said, 'Heaven forbid—if we have a drought or if we have a bushfire that wipes out the feed on the rangelands, not only will we see devastation of the rangelands environmentally but also we are going to see cattle die in their tens if not hundreds of thousands.' And what happened? And where were the activists? Where was the RSPCA standing up and saying, 'We take responsibility for the death by starvation of those animals on the rangelands'? They were nowhere. I do not like to say this word in the parliament, but I do have to accurately record it: one of them said to me, 'Shit happens.' Does it really? That was the circumstance because, regrettably, as we all know, both drought and bushfire followed in that season.
I want to go to this question about how we need to process everything in Australia because only then are we going to protect the meat-processing industry. These are the statistics: 92 per cent of all beef cattle in this country are processed domestically and two-thirds of them go as hamburger meat to the United States of America. We are the second biggest exporter of beef in the world—not the second biggest producer; the second biggest exporter. Eight per cent of animals go in the live export trade. You would think the member for Kennedy, who comes from North Queensland, would understand it better. I was at University College with him in the sixties, so I have known him for many years. The simple facts of the matter are twofold: first, it is the live export trade that creates the competition in the market so that producers get a fair return; and, second, over the years in Queensland, whether the seasons have been good or bad, that 92 per cent and eight per cent split has remained absolutely consistent.
There are people who say, 'Oh well, if we didn't have live exports, we would simply be able to sell the meat to those markets.' When we lost the live export trade to Saudi Arabia, do you think beef and sheepmeat sales doubled? They did not; they were obliterated. We had none. Again in 2011, when we lost the live export trade with Indonesia for a period the number of live cattle going to Indonesia that year halved. If we could sell the beef instead of the live animals, logic would tell you what would have happened to the sales of beef to Indonesia that year wouldn't it, Mr Acting Deputy President? Yes, you have got one out of one again: they also halved. The two trades have always been very complementary—one opens the markets for the other.
Let me remind you that four million sheep go into Saudi Arabia from other countries every year now, some of them on 747 jumbo jets. We used to sell up to three million sheep when I was in the trade in the 1980s. None of them come from Australia now. Do you think the whole trade stopped? Do you think the Saudi markets went, 'Oh, look at those Australians; they've stopped selling to us, therefore we're going to stop eating sheepmeat'? What a load of nonsense. They have sourced them from other countries, whose standards may not be those that we in Australia have implemented over time, so the loss of trade means the loss of animal welfare standards around the world. How do the activists explain that? They simply cannot. This lack of understanding was displayed by a young woman from an activist organisation in 2013, not two years after the trade was banned, who said:
It is disappointing to continue to hear that the five-week suspension to Indonesia in 2011 is still being blamed for issues facing the industry in 2013.
You bet it was. There were suicides and bankruptcies not only of pastoralists but also of those who supported them: trucking companies, helicopter companies and other supporting companies. The impact is still being felt to this day. How disappointing that somebody would be so naive and so ignorant. That ban hit at the top of the expenditure curve, when all the money was out there being spent, and the bottom of the revenue curve. The last time they had seen a dollar was October of the previous year, 2010. When did the ban come in? When did that ABC footage get released? It was the end of May. They had not had a dollar of revenue for six months, they were at the top of the expenditure curve, and then bang! If that was a coincidence, I tell you what, I am Uncle Billy's uncle—and I certainly am not.
The live export trade underpins the meat-processing trade. Let me give you two examples from our home state of Western Australia. These are actual sale prices of sheep, and it shows you the impact of the live export trade. At a time when the live export trade was ceased, one of my associates managed to get $44 for a line of rams. When the live export trade resumed, he was getting $120 for an equivalent line of rams—three times the price. For ewes it was $15 without the trade and $60 with the trade. That is the sort of thing we are talking about.
I finish my contribution with the statistics from the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources from July to December last year. Cattle: 99.88 per cent of cattle arrived safely. There was 0.12 per cent mortality. That is better than being on the range land. For sheep, 98.89 per cent survival and 1.2 per cent mortality. Let me finish my contribution by telling you what the mortality rate for human beings in Australia is. The annual figure is 0.6 per cent. Cattle deaths on these ships are 0.12 per cent; sheep, 1.2 per cent; humans, 0.6 per cent. (Time expired)
For the last two weeks sunrise and sunset in Hobart have been marked by an eerie, echoing call: vocalists broadcast throughout the city from 450 loudspeakers mounted on Hobart buildings and able to be heard for kilometres on a clear day. The sound installation Siren Song, produced by Byron Scullin and Hannah Fox, reminds visitors and residents that despite the dark the city of Hobart is about to become alive. It is the winter that we have all come to love. 2017 was the fifth year that Hobart has played host to Dark Mofo, the Museum of Old and New Art's midwinter festival. As the sun sets, the city is lit up by music, sound, art and lighting, with local producers showing off a winter feast of food to die for. Winter nights in Hobart are the longest nights in Australia, but while Dark Mofo was taking place you would hardly notice. The festival's impact is felt beyond the 10 days that it literally illuminates the city.
Former Prime Minister Paul Keating understood the rich social dividend of the arts. He said:
Culture creates wealth … Culture employs … Culture adds value, it makes an essential contribution to innovation, marketing and design … It attracts tourists and students. It is essential to our economic success.
Nowhere is this more evident than in Tasmania in midwinter. Dark Mofo engages 665 artists at 67 different events across 25 different Hobart venues. The festival employs over 1,000 people and brings at least 8,000 interstate and overseas visitors to our island every year. It is estimated to generate $50 million for the state's economy. Its contribution to Tasmanian culture is also of unique significance. Dark Mofo has cemented our state's reputation as a place of vibrant culture, a warm and welcoming haven in the depths of winter and a place of unflinching commitment to artistic expression. It allows us to access a part of the city that we did not even know about, experiences we had not felt or had forgotten. In the words of its incredibly talented creative director, Leigh Carmichael, Dark Mofo explores the full spectrum of human emotion, enabling a deeper understanding of the nature of existence. This festival is unique in its determination to foster that understanding, not only amongst those who actually attend, but in every member of the community, every person in Hobart. Installations which command the whole city's attention have been a hallmark of Dark Mofo since its inception, from Ryoji Ikeda's Spectra, which projected a column of light 15 kilometres into the sky, and Anthony McCall's Night Ship, which beamed a searchlight into the suburbs from up and down the Derwent River, to this year's Siren Song.
Dark Mofo makes art the property of the community. It gives us a sense of ownership of the place in which we live. It is a catalyst for public reflection and for debate and discussion between friends, neighbours and strangers. It unites Tasmanians and visitors in admiration and in wonder. In illuminating the city and igniting that discussion and debate around the state, Dark Mofo is a very visible testament to arts' capacity to bring people together, to challenge us and to ask big questions of us. Dark Mofo is unafraid to do that, and I love that about it. It demonstrates that culture and creativity form the fabric of understanding that binds communities and enriches lives—so many of which have been enriched during these last two weeks in Hobart.
Indeed, the entire city has been booked out. Hotels, restaurants and transport businesses all benefited from this festival. The city, in the middle of winter, was just buzzing. One of my favourite parts of this year's Dark Mofo festival was Chris Levine's incredible, geometrical, technicolour lasers with immersed vibrating sounds beaming out from a dark, old abandoned warehouse in Dark Park near the waterfront. This legendary UK artist put on a light show, the likes of which had never been seen in Australia before. It was absolutely amazing, and, indeed, it was bringing light out of the darkness.
Everyone loves the Dark Mofo and City of Hobart Winter Feast, but one part of the festival that has never gotten me to partake in is the now annual Dark Mofo Nude Solstice Swim. Hundreds of people, this morning at sunrise, braved the cold to go nude for a dip in the chilly Derwent River to mark the end of the longest night of the year. Tasmania was also enriched and cleansed on Sunday's winter solstice by the annual ogoh-ogoh monster-burning ritual that rid our island home of negative tensions and welcomed the day after our darkest day.
It is through art like this that Dark Mofo encourages an appreciation of diversity, exposing us to new ideas and perspectives beyond the limits of our own experiences. Leigh Carmichael said, 'There's a school of thought that believes it's by facing our fears and embracing the darkness that we more deeply appreciate the light and the joy.' On Sunday night, 18,000 fears went up in flames with a loud bang as the bamboo and papier-mache Tasmanian tiger ogoh-ogoh was paraded through the streets of Hobart, from Castray Esplanade to its fiery end at Dark Park. Thousands of people lined the streets to be part of this noisy ogoh-ogoh Tasmanian tiger procession—sharing with us this Balinese tradition—that was carrying all their fears to be burnt away. This is something we have come to embrace and support with such positivity as part of the Dark Mofo festival. After all, what is there not to like about getting rid of all your fears? This incredible sculpture took three Balinese artists three weeks to make and was then left on display in the Dark Park for the duration of the festival for people to come in, write down their fears and place them inside the belly of the tiger. It was such a highlight, and, indeed, people felt a sense of ownership of their ogoh-ogoh.
I am really proud to live in and be the representative of such a vibrant, welcoming and culturally diverse community. On behalf of the thousands of members of this community who attended Dark Mofo, again, in this 2017 year, we give our thanks to the festival's drivers, Leigh Carmichael and Kate Gould, as well as the founder and owner of MONA, David Walsh, who has made an extraordinary impact on Tasmania through building the Museum of Old and New Art. Indeed, he has been key to Tasmania's growing cultural renaissance. I look forward to what the light coming out of the dark will look like next year, but one thing I know is: if Leigh and Kate have anything to do with it, it will not disappoint.
It will probably come as no surprise to anyone in this chamber that I am a very proud Western Australian, and I take every opportunity in this place to promote the many successful and innovative industries we have in Western Australia, particularly those that develop and commercialise world-leading technologies. I rise to speak today on another great example of the spirit of Western Australian enterprise and ingenuity—Carnegie Clean Energy, a Western Australian company whose name, I am sure, will be shortly as globally recognisable as Tesla has become today. Carnegie is a leading example of the type of capability, innovation and enterprise in both clean energy generation and storage that we have resident in our great state.
Firstly, though, I would like to congratulate the federal government and in particular the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Mr Frydenberg, on the steps they are taking to secure Australia's energy future and lower the risk of our own national grid being held hostage to left-wing ideology. I think that it has never been more important for our nation to have secure, affordable and reliable base load power. While clean energy is undoubtedly the way forward for our nation and also for our planet we have to ensure in this place that the transition is done according to science and not according to what I would refer to as nihilistic-like, left-wing ideology.
Most of you probably are not aware that last week Carnegie Clean Energy, a company based in Belmont just east of Perth city, was selected by the US State Department to lead global business in achieving United Nations Sustainable Development Goal No. 7, which is affordable and clean energy. This is just the latest in a long line of clean energy achievements delivered and realised by Carnegie, and I take this opportunity to mark the significance of their achievement and just recognition by the United States.
While many others in this place and out in the broader community are theorising about the merits, possibilities and potential of clean energy, Carnegie has been out there for the last few years quietly but persistently making it happen. Carnegie has gone from strength to strength, and they are now offering a very realistic prospect of affordable and deliverable clean energy at a time when securing our energy future is one of the most important and significant challenges facing our nation and consequently all of us here in this place. But for a Western Australian company to be selected by the US State Department to provide international leadership on affordable and clean energy is an amazing honour, and it demonstrates yet again the capability that we have not just in Western Australia but across our great nation.
The Unreasonable Goals program, the structure under which Carnegie will be providing this global leadership, is an exciting new way to tackle global challenges. This group is made up of some of the world's most constructive and successful entrepreneurs, and it aims to propose solutions to the United Nations' 17 new Sustainable Development Goals at gatherings to be held globally between this year and 2030. On SDG7, Carnegie will be leading 15 global businesses throughout this program, and they include notable companies such as Tesla, General Electric, Google X, and USAID.
Again, it is an amazing honour for Carnegie to be actually leading these companies in this global effort, and I pay tribute to Carnegie for their leadership. I have watched their development with great interest and, quite frankly, a great deal of pride as a Western Australian since I first visited their wave power project on Garden Island in 2015. From a wave energy generated proof of concept at HMAS Stirling to delivering the biggest battery ever designed and built right here in Australia to supply the Murchison Radio-Astronomy Observatory north of Perth, they have made very significant strides in this sector across multiple different technologies in a very short space of time. Arguably they are now making the most significant contribution to the development of new clean energy technologies in our nation and also globally.
When I first visited Carnegie on Garden Island, they were testing what they call the CETO 5 project. It consists of three large buoys under the ocean surface, which, with the motion of the waves, uses hydraulic power pressure to circulate fluid through the system to turn generators on land, and also to provide desalinated water with negligible use of electricity. That project was the first demonstration anywhere in the world of a grid-connected wave energy system, and it was the only wave project to consist of three units operating together in an array under water that produced both power and desalinated water.
Through this proof of concept, Carnegie sold both the power and the water to the Department of Defence on Australia's largest naval base, HMAS Stirling. This system stands to provide significant capability to not only our own Navy but also navies globally, especially in terms of providing a self-sufficient, island based backup to mains power. These units were in operation for a total of 13,000 cumulative hours and, because they are situated under water, unlike previous trials, they can reliably withstand very rough sea conditions, where many other projects in the past had failed.
This first Perth project was supported by a $13.1 million grant from ARENA and $10 million in grant funding from the Western Australian government's low emissions energy development program. The CETO desalination plant was also part funded by a $1.27 million AusIndustry grant from the Clean Technology Innovation Program. This project provided the basis for engagement with many island nations, many of which still rely on importing diesel, and many of which have significant stretches of coastline with ample wave power to exploit.
Carnegie are also doing many other projects. There are a couple I would like to share with you today. Carnegie are currently developing a 10-megawatt solar power station for Northam. This station will spread over about 25 hectares and will deliver 24,000 megawatts per hour per annum through the use of 34,000 solar panels. Carnegie also has projects in development right across the globe in the United Kingdom, Canada, Burma, Ireland, Mauritius, Chile and many others. Because of all of this, I have no doubt that the name Carnegie Clean Energy will soon be a global household name as an international powerhouse.
Those opposite, I believe, are jeopardising Australia's future economic growth and denying the secure, reliable and affordable energy plan that all Australian businesses, families and society need and depend on. Unlike those opposite, this government is committed to ensuring the security and affordability of a reliable energy system. Our nation needs certainty for investment in new generation and lower power prices for businesses and families. It is pleasing to hear and see that COAG energy ministers, including those from Labor states and territories, have all agreed that the primary responsibility of all governments in Australia is to ensure that there is an energy system in place that we can trust that is affordable and reliable. I believe that the proposals put forward in the new report are sensible and that they need to be debated further in this place and in the broader community, because Australia needs a system that is secure, reliable and affordable to deliver the necessary energy security for our nation.
Once again, I congratulate Carnegie for their leadership in developing clean energy solutions that offer the very real prospect of reliable, affordable and deliverable energy outcomes for this country. Just as importantly, a lot of their solutions are becoming more and more economically sustainable and viable for our nation. And, if all of these were not reasons enough for celebrating Carnegie Clean Energy, I have to say: what more is there than the fact that they are Western Australian?
We talk about fake news, but I have some real world news from the people of Australia. This nation is in the grip of an ice epidemic that is destroying lives, families and Australia's social fabric. When we reconvene after the winter break, I will be tabling two separate petitions urging us to do something drastic, real and effective about methamphetamine, commonly known as crystal meth or ice. One is an online national petition that so far has gathered almost 45,000 signatures. The other is from a community in the south-east of my home state of South Australia and has gathered thousands of signatures, with people signing up on pieces of paper around their community. These people will be telling us that Australia's politicians have failed to confront the enormity of the ice problem and have failed to provide the measures most urgently needed.
In foreshadowing what is to come, I provide the following information and urge all of us to do some real-world homework during the winter break. According to the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, ice is now the most prevalent illegal drug in the nation and is costing us an estimated $4.4 billion annually in health care, crime and economic losses, and that does not even begin to measure the heartache that ice causes to so many families and so many communities around the country. According to Western Australia's chief justice, ice now fuels 95 per cent of that state's armed robberies and half its murders, and I dare say that will be repeated across the nation. According to the Council of Australian Governments National Ice Action Strategy, at last count in 2013 there were an estimated 200,000 Australians using ice annually and about 50,000 using it once weekly.
However, based on recent wastewater analysis, I believe those figures are vastly underestimated and woefully outdated. Data compiled by the University of South Australia last December shows that ice use in Adelaide has trebled in the past five years and increased by 25 per cent in the past year alone. In a staggering assessment, based on that wastewater analysis, it is estimated that in some areas 450 doses of ice were found for every 1,000 people in Adelaide, which I find absolutely staggering. That is 35 times more than the rate of cocaine use and 225 times the rate of ecstasy and heroin use discovered in wastewater.
These figures do not rely on what people say in surveys; they scientifically record what has actually been in their bodies. Those figures cannot lie to hide the truth. So I do not accept that the 2013 estimate of 50,000 ice users is even close to the real figure. If ice use has trebled in the past five years, it could well be closer to 150,000 weekly users by 2018. If half the people surveyed did tell the truth, it could even be much higher than that. Either way, we do not just have a problem; we have a full-blown, unmitigated crisis.
These petitions will tell us that the COAG's National Ice Action Strategy is failing to deliver the two things that people want most: residential inpatient rehabilitation facilities and laws to make people enter them. Under the National Ice Action Strategy, almost $300 million is being distributed between the states and territories, which decide how to spend the funds. Questions that my colleague Senator Kakoschke-Moore asked in Senate estimates in March this year and also on the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, which she is a member of, revealed that only two primary health networks are commissioning new ice residential rehabilitation facilities: the Darling Downs and West Moreton PHN in Queensland and the Hunter, New England and Central Coast PHN in New South Wales. Furthermore, the federal government will not even know how many extra people have received treatment for ice addiction until the end of September. In my home state of South Australia, which did not receive a fair proportion of the national funds in the first place, as my colleague Senator Kakoschke-Moore has so well articulated, the state government has yet to even announce what it is doing with its share of the money, and that is something the state government must be held accountable for.
The message in these petitions, whose instigators include parents whose children have been addicted to ice and people who have been addicted to ice themselves, is resounding: give addicts a place and a chance to recover. We need to help them rebuild their shattered lives and rebuild their communities.
If at the very least there are 50,000 Australians using ice every week and by definition that is a significant health problem for those people then we need to ensure that at least 10 per cent of them have the facilities and chance to get their lives back on track at residential rehabilitation facilities. That means that at the very least Australia needs 5,000 hospital beds in rehabilitation facilities spread across the country. In my state, with seven per cent of the population but a disproportionately worse outcome when it comes to ice addiction, that could provide 350 beds in seven 50-bed facilities. I am not saying it is the full answer, but, for goodness sake, we need to tackle this head on.
I am sure we would all agree that providing an inpatient rehabilitation bed would be far more beneficial to society than giving someone a two-year prison bed. Sadly, that is the choice we really do face. At the moment, the only place we seem to send ice addicts is to prison or onto the streets, where they can harm themselves and others. In fact, a report by the Australian Institute of Criminology released just last month found that 50 per cent of new prison arrivals were recent ice users.
That brings me to the next issue that one of the petitions will be seeking: laws that give parents of children with drug additions, including adult children, the ability to require them to get help through mandatory rehabilitation. My state colleague in the South Australia Legislative Council, the Hon. John Darley, has a bill to that effect that has yet to receive the support of the major parties. That petition was started by a Queensland father named Simon Thomas, whose 20-year-old son is living on the streets, addicted to ice and putting himself at real risk. Mr Thomas is powerless to help his son, who refuses to accept advice about treatment. We need to recognise that addiction is a disease. It needs to be treated as a medical issue. People need to be sent to rehab to get better before they commit a crime and get sent to prison where they will just get worse. It is a controversial proposal, but everything needs to be on the table for discussion and evaluation. Something new has to be done.
The second petition will come from the Limestone Coast region of my home state of South Australia, in the south-east around Millicent and Mount Gambier, where I have heard so many stories of frustration, despair and devastation. In the past six months I have attended forums in the area's regional centres, including Mount Gambier, Millicent and Naracoorte. There, two Naracoorte women, Karen Judd and Kate Amoroso, are leading the call for rehabilitation facilities to be reopened in the area. Karen's son died in 2010 after a long battle with addiction. She says the only help he got at the time was from going to jail. That is not real help. The south-east is in desperate and urgent need of more support for those who are suffering from ice addiction, something that Kate Amoroso has been campaigning for so diligently. Currently there are no rehabilitation facilities in that region.
As we enter this winter break—and, by the way, for those listening, that does not mean we go on holidays; it means that we go back to our electorates and our electorate offices to work hard on constituent issues, but it does mean we are not here—we need to think about those who are cursed by the ravages of a brain-altering addiction and whose only goal is their next hit. Let us think of their parents and the laws which would have them be onlookers, prison visitors and pallbearers to their children. Let's also look to countries like Sweden which have taken steps to do what these petitions will ask of us when we return. Finally, for the sake of our children, their parents and our country and its future prosperity, let us use our power wisely and imaginatively to find a kinder, wiser, more intelligent and effective solution before the scourge of ice addiction further tears our country and our communities apart.
Before I touch on the topic I want to speak about today, I want to promote the hashtag #womenshearts and put that firmly on the agenda. It is about raising awareness that heart disease and heart attacks is the No. 1 killer of women in this country.
But I now want to turn to the fantasy land that we have been experiencing here in this chamber for most of the morning with the debate that is going on in relation to the outrageous attacks that have been made by this government on the Australian education system: $22 billion dollars is what this government wants to take away from every school child in this country. This government sees education as a cost. But education is about investing in our children. It makes good economic sense. That is fundamentally what the difference is between us and those on that side, who want to cut education. They want to take money away from schoolchildren to give to the big end of town. They want to take money away from our schoolchildren to give millionaires a tax cut. That is what those people are about: Gonski 2. We had Gonski 1, which gave us all the research and told us what was in the best interests at that time for our schoolkids. That is what we are supporting. We will fight, along with every school in this country. After all, 90 per cent of schools in this country do not support the government's legislation. They do not support it.
This government is in turmoil. We have seen since the last election that they have been dysfunctional. We have a Prime Minister who has no control over his caucus. Their own caucus is not being given full information when it comes to the education bill that is before the Senate. They are engaged in a war with themselves. Senator Back, who is leaving the Senate this week, is threatening to cross the floor. He has had a lot of experience with Catholic education in this country and he knows this measure is bad. Senator Duniam is laughing about the cuts. He is laughing about the money that is going to be taken away from every school in Tasmania, his home state. It will be interesting to see if the Catholic Education Parents and Friends Association invites him this year to open their conference. I don't think they will, because Catholic Education knows that this government is the worst government in five decades when it comes to education. Senators on the other side laugh—give a big clap; this is really funny! But people on this side of the chamber will not enter into any deal at all to take away money from our kids, and we certainly will never support the dirty deals that you do with the Greens.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator Polly, please resume your seat. Senator Reynolds, you were heard in silence and I would ask that you extend that courtesy, with your colleagues, so that Senator Polly can be heard in silence. Senator Polly.
I would like the clock to be readjusted. They have taken away valuable time in which I could be making the point that this government, on education, on health and on every aspect of their budget, refuses to listen. We have a government that is hell-bent on taking money from school kids, taking away valuable resources and attacking the Catholic Education System. We know that one in five children in this country are educated in the Catholic Education System. That is about choice. We know that at least a third of those children are not Catholics. So it is not about Catholics versus other private schools or the state school system. In regional areas in the majority of instances the Catholic schools are supporting families—it is not just about education—who need help over and above the education of their own children. This is about a social conscience.
Those on the other side clearly do not understand what fairness is, because there is nothing fair in the legislation before us. A smart government would listen to what the sector is telling them and then go away and re-draft the legislation. They could re-draft it and have the support of this chamber, but they do not want to do it, because they are so arrogant, so out of touch and so confident that it does not matter if the education system, or the Catholics, or the unions or the teachers campaign against them until the next election, along with us. They are so arrogant that it will not have any impact on them at all. They ought to look back at what happened on 2 July, when the Prime Minister himself had to dig into his very deep pockets and fund the Liberals' campaign. He bought his way into government and he may very well have to do the same thing when it comes to education. We know this because we are listening to the community. We know the value of education and what it means to our economy. It is an investment. It is not a cost. But those on the other side will always put the big end of town first. Those on the other side who have very deep pockets look forward to your taxation cut at the expense of school children. That is all right for senators on the other side, but I will never do it. I would never put your very deep pockets above children in this country, because they deserve the very best. It is no wonder you are so out of touch. You are so arrogant and so rich that you do not worry about having a social conscience. If you did you would withdraw that legislation and go back to the drawing board and then you have some hope of getting it passed. But you are so arrogant. And we have the Nationals in rural Australia. Who provides education there. It is the Catholics. They come in here crying crocodile tears about regional Australia when it suits them. You have the option indeed today to withdraw it and then come back and then it will get passed. Don't cry crocodile tears in this place.
It being 2pm we move to questions without notice.
My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. Since announcing his schools package on 2 May this year, the minister has constantly said that, under his education package, there would be 'no special deals'. Reports today indicate the government will temporarily delay its $4.6 billion cut to Catholic schools. Has the minister now done a special deal? If so, what is it?
I thank the senator for her question, particularly in light of the decision the Senate made earlier today to progress the government's school funding reforms to the next stage of debate. I am pleased to inform the Senate, and Senator O'Neill in particular, that the government is delivering additional funding to all Australian school systems—in particular, the Catholic school system, which she asked about, which will grow, as I have told the Senate before, by $3.4 billion over the duration of the proposed 10-year arrangements the government has outlined. In relation to the specific question that Senator O'Neill has asked, I am equally pleased to make it clear to Senator O'Neill and all senators that our commitment to ensure that, at the end of a transition period, there is consistency, equity and application of a needs based arrangement is absolutely resolute. The Turnbull government's approach to ensure consistency of treatment at the end of the transition period—
Order! Pause the clock. Senator O'Neill, a point of order.
Mr President, on relevance: we only have 53 seconds. We have heard the word 'transition', and that is all we know about the deal. The question was: has the minister now done a special deal and, if so, what is it? There has got to be more detail than the one word 'transition'.
I will remind the minister of the question.
Senator O'Neill asked a question about special deals. She asked whether there would be different deals. The point I was making is that our commitment, as has been the case all along, is to ensure that, in the end, we have consistent needs-based funding across all school systems across Australia. I have equally been very transparent—
Order! Pause the clock. Senator O'Neill, a point of order.
Mr President, I again draw your attention to the fact that the question was very clear in asking whether a special deal has been done. The minister has not addressed that question.
Senator O'Neill, I agreed with your point of order on the first occasion; I do not on this occasion. The minister has been directly relevant.
Our intention is absently clear: consistent treatment in terms of needs based funding. We have, as I was indicating, been very clear as well that we will deliver and make sure we talk constructively with all different parties and sectors to ensure they are comfortable about the process under which that transition occurs to get to that point of consistent, equitable treatment. (Time expired)
Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question.
Can the minister confirm his special deal will not extend to public schools, 85 per cent of which will not reach a fair level of funding within the decade?
I am happy to confirm that the funding growth for public schools under the Turnbull government's reforms is significant. The funding growth will provide billions of additional dollars out of our $18.6 billion commitment that will flow to the neediest schools across Australia. Indeed, public school systems will see the fastest rate of growth under the reforms the Turnbull government is putting through. More than 4½ thousand of Australia's neediest schools—overwhelmingly, public schools—will see growth in excess of five per cent per student per annum over the decade under the reforms that are before this chamber at present. This is about delivering on the vision of David Gonski and his panel, ensuring that we apply a true consistent needs-based model, that we do it consistently as a national government regardless of the boundaries or borders of different states and territories, and the greatest growth in support flows to those public schools who need and deserve it most.
Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question.
Given the minister announced his policy without consultation; has ignored the concerns of the Catholic, independent and public school sectors; has been labelled the first minister in five decades to fail to engage with the Catholic Education Commission but has now done an eleventh-hour deal with his own coalition colleagues, isn't it clear that the only time the minister listens to concerns is when his own political life depends on it?
What is clear is that the only time those opposite care about what they are doing is when they think they can snatch or steal some votes. That is why what they do is a hotchpotch of different deals and special deals. That is why their approach to public policy is like their approach to union negotiations and enterprise bargaining; it is about a deal over here, a deal over there. For them, of course, it is about how they can stitch it up in some way, shape or form. That is why we ended up not with what the Gonski panel recommended but, instead, with 27 different special deals—special deals that have been described as a 'corruption of the Gonski report'.
Senator Cash interjecting—
Indeed, Senator Cash is correct: a number of them have worked for different unions, who know plenty about different issues of corruption—corruption of deals, special deals, different approaches. The Turnbull government stand proud on a record of actually applying consistent, needs based funding to Australian schools, and that is exactly what we are determined to do.
I acknowledge the presence in the President's gallery of former senator Sean Edwards. Welcome.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister update the Senate on the support for the Turnbull government's school funding reforms?
I thank Senator McKenzie for her continued passionate advocacy in relation to school funding reforms and to a fair deal for all Australians, particularly for regional and rural schools, who are big winners under these reforms. Of course, I know that somebody else who cares greatly about rural and regional Australia is former Senator Edwards, who I am delighted to see in the gallery—a fine champion of regional issues, particularly in my home state of South Australia.
There has been a further wave of endorsements and support for the Turnbull government's school funding reforms—a further wave that I am delighted has been led by none other than a former president of the Australian Education Union. Finally, some of those who seem to have been simply colluding with the Labor Party for political gain have actually realised that there are real gains to be had. The former president of the AEU, Ms Dianne Foggo, has said, 'But, you know, this is just too big for politics. This is a real opportunity, and honestly I am just over the theatrics of this, because if this opportunity slips past, as I said, I just doubt we are going to get another chance at this.' Ms Foggo continued: 'Why wouldn't we all support something which will give pre-eminence to public schools in Australia? Why wouldn't we support something indeed that delivers the type of model that was recommended by the Gonski panel?' Ms Foggo asks some very fine questions for those opposite, who continue to sit in opposition to these reforms. Why they sit in opposition is of course purely for political opportunism. They continue to seek to muddy the waters of school funding to be in a position to create special deals and arrangements, rather than apply what the very panel that they appointed actually recommended in terms of fair, consistent, needs based funding. That is why we have had that endorsement from Ms Foggo and from a range of other stakeholders, not least Mr Gonski himself.
Senator McKenzie, a supplementary question.
Can the minister apprise the Senate of how the government's fair, transparent and needs based funding reforms will result in growth for Victorian schools?
Victorian schools, for which Senator McKenzie is a proud advocate and representative—and she is of course a former teacher in those schools—will be significant beneficiaries out of these changes. The Victorian public education system will see an average growth rate of 5.4 per cent under these reforms, catching up and making up for the fact that they got a bad deal out of the different deals that were done by the previous, Labor government.
That will see public funding for government school students in Victoria grow from around $2½ thousand per student in 2017 to $4,256 per student in 2027. This is significant growth for Victorian public schools, from $1.53 billion in 2017 all the way through to $3.13 billion by 2027. It will help schools like the Bendigo Senior Secondary College, with around 1,600 students, who will get additional funding over that period of $16 million plus— (Time expired)
Senator McKenzie, a final supplementary question?
Is the minister aware of any alternative policies around school funding?
I am aware that those opposite seem to not have the courage to do what all the members of the crossbench have done, which is sensibly engage in relation to this debate. All the members of the crossbench have been willing to have proper discussions and engagements, recognising that there are real benefits and merits to this reform, that building a proper school funding model for the future is the right thing to do, that the Turnbull government has rescued the Gonski report from the corruption of those opposite and that in doing so we are putting in place true needs based funding for the future.
Those opposite seem to want to cling onto $22 billion they claim of funny money—money that they do not know how they will get, that they spend multiple times over, that in their case is purely about putting in place different deals to buy off different groups rather than the principled, consistent approach the Turnbull government is taking.
My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. In August last year Prime Minister Turnbull, Minister Scullion and the Liberal member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey, visited the Fregon Anangu School on the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands in the far north of South Australia. In 2015 the Fregon Anangu School received funding from the Commonwealth of $9,318 per student. Can the minister confirm that under his education package Commonwealth funding to Fregon Anangu School will decrease to only $7,307 per student in 2018?
I am delighted to confirm for Senator Gallacher that government schools in South Australia will see significant funding gains under the proposal. The South Australian government stands to receive $446 million this year, which will grow to $480 million next year. That is additional funding that keeps going up and up, all the way through to 2027, to $853 million—
Mr President, my point of order is on direct relevance: I asked about Fregon Anangu School.
I think we need to be fair to the minister, Senator Gallacher. He is only a quarter of the way into his answer, and he was addressing part of the detail of what you have asked.
So, across South Australian government schools, on average, per-student funding will grow, and that per-student funding will grow from $2,600 per student to nearly $4,500 per student under the reforms in question. Equally, I would invite Senator Gallacher to take a look at the published documents the Turnbull government has put out that shows that the school in question will receive a growth in funding. There will be from around $654,000 up to around $5 million of growth over the 10-year period—significant growth over that period of time, ensuring that each school benefits. Of course, the South Australian government, like any system, has its autonomy to make sure that it funds each of its schools responsibly. But the South Australian government gets more money under this model.
It's Commonwealth funding.
Senator Wong does not appreciate the fact that the Commonwealth gives the money to each of the state governments—she obviously has no idea how this works as she yells out that this is Commonwealth funding. Of course we give a single cheque to each of the state governments, but that cheque goes up each and every year into the future and we are providing real benefits to each of those schools right across South Australia.
Senator Gallacher, a supplementary question.
Minister, how is it fair that students at the Fregon Anangu School will receive a cut in funding of $2,011 per student, or 22 per cent?
I refer the honourable senator directly to the school funding estimator that has been published. It shows the 2017 funding for this school is $6,892. That grows in 2018 to $7,307 and in 2027, $11,891. That is a significant increase for that school. Of course it is a school that is part of a system, and that system overall receives a significant increase as well at a faster rate than most other states and territories because, once again, South Australia signed up to a dud deal at the time under the Gillard government. We will rectify that by ensuring that all states and territories are treated equally according to the need of the students and schools within their system.
Senator Gallacher, a final supplementary question.
Given students at the Fregon Anangu School will see a cut in funding while the King's School in Sydney will see a funding boost of $19 million, is it not clear that Turnbull's education package is deeply flawed and will leave students in low-socioeconomic regions worse off?
Sometimes there are good examples of why we need to do more to lift numeracy skills in Australia, and sometimes those examples are here in the Senate chamber with us. The facts are clear, and I have read them out: funding for the school in question grows each year into the future under the Turnbull government's model. Funding for the South Australian government education system grows each year into the future under the Turnbull government's model. That is basic numeracy; that is basic maths—there is more funding to help schools exactly like this one as there is for every school right across the South Australian government education system and indeed across government education systems around the country.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Ryan. Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia, or RDVSA, is a woman-led internationally renowned specialist service with decades of experience. This crucial frontline service currently delivers the 1800RESPECT hotline for victims of DV and sexual assault, but they are at risk of losing their funding under a tender by Medibank Health Solutions—a highly profitable private company. Can you, right now, rule out any funding cut for RDVSA, and will the government step in if MHS does not award the sub-tender to RDVSA?
MHS, the current provider of 1800RESPECT, has commenced a tender process, as Senator Waters outlined, for the trauma specialist counselling component of the service. MHS is responsible for this subcontracting arrangement under its contract with the department to deliver 1800RESPECT. MHS has included a sector expert with a background in domestic and family violence helpline services and an independent probity officer on the evaluation panel. In late May this year MHS advised the department that it had agreed to an extension of the current contract with Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia until the end of October this year. This will ensure that all callers will continue to have access to trauma specialist counselling while MHS conducts negotiations in good faith to finalise the outcome of the tender.
I do not have a direct answer to the question Senator Waters asked. I am sure she will appreciate that. I am not in a position to rule in or out a matter outside my direct portfolio. I will seek further information and come back to the Senate.
A supplementary question, Senator Waters.
I appreciate the minister taking that on notice. I am very much looking forward to his response. There have been reports of a spike in complaints about 1800RESPECT due to flaws in the new triage model implemented by MHS with the government's approval. Will you now commit to ensuring that there is an independent investigation of these complaints?
I do have some data on performance of the 1800RESPECT line. The most recent figures show that, since the introduction of the first response triage model in mid-August last year, 73 per cent of calls have been answered within 30 seconds. Data from MHS from mid-August to the end of March this year shows that approximately 30 per cent of callers required intensive support provided by trauma specialist counsellors. MHS data on call-out shows that of the remaining callers 38.1 per cent received information, 34 per cent of callers received initial trauma informed counselling and education and 19 per cent received information about provider options. There are some other smaller categories, which time precludes me from going through. The remaining callers were referred to RDVSA or provided with other warm referrals. MHS—
A point of order, Senator Waters.
Mr President, I appreciate the minister reading out those figures. I have those. I am interested in whether or not there is going to be an independent investigation into the complaints about the triage model. If he does not have that information to hand, can the minister please take that on notice and provide it as a matter of urgency?
Mr President, on the point of order: the question referred to the performance, and I thought it was directly relevant to the Senate to provide some of the performance data for that service provider.
There was only one question: 'Will you commit to an investigation?' So Senator Waters is technically correct. Minister, you have been exceptionally helpful, I must say, with your answer. You have 10 seconds in which to respond.
As I said previously, I am not in a position, it not being my direct responsibility, to rule that matter in or out, Senator Waters. If I am in a position to provide further information to the Senate, I will do so.
Senator Waters, a final supplementary question.
MHS have announced that they have projected a doubling of profits from their health call centre services, including 1800RESPECT. Why does the government believe that it is acceptable that private companies can profit from domestic violence and sexual assault services?
Quite frankly, I do not think it is fair or reasonable to try and load a question about the role of profit-making enterprises in the health sector in such a way. I do not think it is appropriate.
Why not?
I do not see an issue, Senator Waters, with people making a profit from providing a service, because everywhere else in our community and across our economy that has proven to drive improvements in service. There is no problem whatsoever with someone making a profit out of a health service. I do not think it is appropriate or reasonable to load the question. I know the Greens do not like profit making in health. I know they do not like profit making in a whole range of the economy. Indeed, the Greens have done their best to destroy profit making right across the economy. But the government does not have a problem with profit-making enterprises fulfilling the terms of contracts, as long as they do what they commit to in those contracts.
My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. Can the minister update the Senate on the very concerning reports relating to threats against public servants from the Australian Building and Construction Commission?
I thank Senator Bushby for this very important question. As has been widely reported, Mr John Setka, the secretary of the construction division of the CFMEU Victoria, yesterday seriously threatened inspectors of the ABCC, including female inspectors, and their families. That is right, Mr President: women and children. I call on all senators in this chamber, regardless of your union affiliation, to condemn these threats and Mr Setka's intimidating behaviour. Mr Setka's threats, which were made yesterday at a public rally, included:
Then we've got these ABCC inspectors.
Let me give a dire warning to the ABCC inspectors: be careful what you do … You know what we’re going to do? We’re going to expose them all.
We will lobby their neighbourhoods. We will tell them who lives in that house. What he does for a living, or she.
I believe that a whole new low was reached yesterday, even by the standards of Mr Setka—who, let's face it, is well-known for his violent and menacing behaviour. Senators may be interested to know—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order, on both sides, particularly on my right.
Senator Scullion interjecting—
Senator Scullion—
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
Order! Senator Collins.
Senator Canavan interjecting—
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
Order! Senator Canavan and Senator Collins. Senator Cash, you have the call.
A whole new low was reached even by Mr Setka's standards yesterday, when he targeted the kids of the ABCC inspectors, threatening to go to their local footy clubs, to go to their local shopping centres. He said of their parents:
They will not be able to show their face anywhere … we expose all these ABCC inspectors.
Imagine this, colleagues. Some of you are parents. Imagine you are at the footy match with your kids on a Saturday, cheering them on on the sidelines, and guess who turns up? It is a violent thug like John Setka, who is there to heavy your family. That is a disgrace.
Senator Bushby, a supplementary question.
Thank you, Mr President—
Senator Canavan interjecting—
You are hypocrites. You published Anna Burke's address—
Senator Collins and Senator Canavan, order! Senator Williams, on a point of order.
Mr President, Senator Collins just called Senator Canavan a hypocrite. I ask you to make her stand and withdraw it.
Senator Collins, if you did say that you should withdraw it.
No, I said it generally.
Honourable senators interjecting—
That is a lie.
Senator Brandis has just said that I told a lie, which is not true.
Can all senators just show some respect across the chamber. Senator Collins, I would ask you to withdraw that comment if you did say that. Senator Brandis, if you did say that about Senator Collins I would like you to withdraw it also.
I will.
I said they were being hypocrites, not that Senator Canavan was a hypocrite. But I withdraw.
Thank you, senators. Senator Bushby, you have the call.
What is the government doing to protect public servants from being bullied, intimidated and threatened?
I can advise the Senate that, given the extremely serious nature of the threats made yesterday by Mr Setka, I have today referred these threats to the Australian Federal Police and the Victoria Police. Despite the behaviour of those opposite, it is time for all people—for all members and senators—to say, 'Enough is enough.' Thuggish behaviour like this no matter where it occurs should never, ever be on display and should be condemned outright. Those opposite know better than anybody that Mr Setka holds an extremely powerful position within the CFMEU. Quite frankly, after yesterday's behaviour, he has shown yet again that he is not a fit and proper person to hold such a position. I call on the Australian Labor Party to not only condemn his disgusting behaviour but, quite frankly, if they are dinkum, sever political ties with the CFMEU and Mr Setka. (Time expired)
Senator Bushby, a final supplementary question.
What can all of our nation's parliamentarians do to protect Commonwealth officials and repudiate these disgraceful comments?
Again, we can all stand united and say, 'Enough is enough.' Threatening public officials and having the audacity to do so at a public rally in front of hundreds of people needs to be condemned. But I do not think those on the other side are prepared to put their money where their mouths are, because we know Mr Setka was actually a very special guest at the election night party of Mr Bill Shorten. We also know he is a regular feature at Labor Party conferences. We also know that his union, the CFMEU, has spent millions after millions in support of the Labor Party.
Again, despite the weasel words from those opposite today, if they were dinkum—
I have a point of order, Mr President. The senator may not be aware that Mr Shorten has repudiated the remarks at a press conference some few hours ago.
That is not a debating point, Senator Wong.
Opposition senators interjecting—
I will take the interjection. He only repudiated them because Anthony Albanese was out there this morning doing it way before him. They were weasel words then— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science. Last week it was announced by the administrators of Arrium, KordaMentha, that private equity firms Newlake Alliance Management and JB Asset Management relying on POSCO technology from South Korea are the preferred consortium to take over the Arrium steelworks at Whyalla. Since then, the British steelmaker Liberty House has increased its bid price. Noting that both bids are contingent on varying types and levels of federal government support and that the choice of the successful bidder is up to the committee of creditors, can the government advise what due diligence has been and will be carried out in respect of each proposal?
I thank the honourable senator for his question, of which he gave some notice. As the good senator said, the administrator KordaMentha has announced a preferred bidder, Newlake. It is not the government who decides the bidder; that is KordaMentha and the Arrium committee of creditors. KordaMentha have of course undertaken extensive due diligence on the validity of each of the proposals in coming to their determination. We as a government are involved in the process and are holding discussions with the preferred bidder announced by KordaMentha. The government has always said it would engage with those who have a long-term plan for Whyalla for a sustainable, globally competitive steel industry. That is what we want. We want jobs that will last there for 10, 20 and 30 years. That is what we are about.
In regard to requests of government in the process, the Commonwealth and South Australian governments have in place a task force that is jointly assessing any requests for government support. That task force is supported by financial and technical advisers on both sides. Any government support will of course be supported by appropriate due diligence and subject to key conditions to ensure that there is a long-term plan for Whyalla.
Senator Xenophon, a supplementary question.
Will the minister be engaged also with Liberty House, given that they are making an alternative bid—so, will there be a genuine engagement with both parties? What is the government's view in relation to the steelmaking track record of each of the bidding entities, and what is the government's assessment of the two radically different technology options being proposed by the bidders, given that there could be Commonwealth involvement in this bid?
The Arrium sale process is at a sensitive stage, and the process is run by KordaMentha, not by the government. As I have said, we are in the process of discussions with the preferred bidder as set out by KordaMentha. At this stage it would not be appropriate for me to stand up now and give a public assessment of the details of each of the bidders' proposals, which are of course confidential. As I made clear, the cross-jurisdictional task force that is looking at these matters is well supported by financial and technical advisers on both sides.
Order! A point of order, Senator Xenophon?
I asked whether the government is also engaged with Liberty House, in addition to the private equity firm Newlake, and JBS Management. Will there be engagement with one or both?
On the point of order, the minister was directly relevant in relation to other matters of your question—you had three points to your question. And the minister did indicate the sensitive nature of the situation at the moment. But I will invite the minister to respond to your point of order if he wishes to.
To put it on the record, the federal government has engaged with both Liberty and Newlake. KordaMentha has made a decision as to the preferred bidder and entered into a process. That is the basis on which we are proceeding.
Senator Xenophon, a final supplementary question.
Does the government acknowledge the strategic importance of steelmaking in this country, and will the government be giving consideration in its deliberations to the track records of the respective bidders in relation to maintaining and growing their workforces in the context of their plans for Arrium?
Firstly, let me say we are committed to a strong, globally competitive steel industry. Now, they are big conditions and there is a lot of work to be done in that regard, and we are working on that. But, as I said before, KordaMentha have announced a preferred bidder. We are now working on what we in South Australia can do with regard to possible government support.
My question is to Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. I refer to the minister's earlier questions concerning the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Is the minister aware of any other threatening or intimidatory behaviour by this union, the CFMEU, or its officials?
Unfortunately, in response to Senator Hume's question, I am. Mr Setka not only threatened ABCC inspectors yesterday; he also made vile comments against senators Hinch and Xenophon for daring to support the rule of law on our nation's building sites. However, I believe that one of the most disgraceful occurrences at yesterday's rally was when Mr Setka also attacked our Australia Federal Police. He said, 'The Federal Police'—the fantastic Federal Police that we read about—'supposed to be protecting us from terrorism. Effing what a shit job you're doing at the moment.'
On behalf of the Turnbull government, I make it very clear that the Turnbull government has nothing but the utmost respect for our Australian Federal Police. We recognise the valuable work our Federal Police have done in protecting us from a number of potential terrorist attacks in recent years, risking their lives to ensure that all Australians are kept safe. And yet Mr Setka could not help himself, attacking the Australian Federal Police merely for doing their jobs. But he also could not help himself and then attacked their impartiality, saying that they are a 'political police force'.
Mr Setka is well known for not caring about the rule of law. He has been found guilty of assaulting the police in the past. In fact, he proudly lists the notorious Mick Gatto as one of his good friends. He has a long history of violence and intimidation. In fact, he once told an employer that he would come after him and that he 'hoped that the employer would die of his cancer'. That is the type of disgusting behaviour Mr Setka indulges in. (Time expired)
Senator Hume, a supplementary question.
I thank the minister for her very disturbing answer. Is the minister aware of any expressions of support or endorsement for this sort of contemptible behaviour?
Yes. Despite the fact that Mr Setka has been convicted or fined for 40 offences and sentenced to jail twice, including for breaking into a work site, where he punched and kicked a worker and threatened another with a steel bar, there are those who still support him. Sally McManus, the secretary of the ACTU, earlier this year said it is okay to break the law if the unions do not like it. Today Mr Shorten said:
… bad laws get changed at elections, bad laws get changed at the ballot box.
What he did not say, though, was that he was waiting for the instructions from people like Mr Setka as to which laws they say need to be changed. Of course, he really could not care less, because, in accordance with Sally McManus's instructions, if you do not like the law, it is okay to break it.
To pick up Senator Wong's previous interjection: he may distance himself from Mr Setka's comments. Until he stops accepting the money, quite frankly, he is still culpable. (Time expired)
Senator Hume, a final supplementary question.
Minister, how can all parliamentarians make it clear that disgraceful behaviour like this should not and will not be tolerated?
As I have stated, this government—the Turnbull government—unanimously condemns the disgraceful behaviour of Mr Setka. Again in response to Senator Wong's interjection: Mr Shorten can atone for his previous support of Mr Setka. He can follow Mr Albanese, go on TV and say that he distances himself from a man who has engaged in criminal behaviour for many years now, who makes public threats to public servants et cetera. But, until Mr Shorten formally cuts ties with the CFMEU and stops accepting the millions and millions and millions of dollars that go into the Labor Party courtesy of the likes of Mr Setka, quite frankly, anything less may well be seen as an endorsement of Mr Setka's actions.
My question is to the Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield. The Australian Classification Board can ban videos and games that it considers to be immoral by refusing to classify them. This restricts what brick-and-mortar shops can sell. However, anyone can access videos and games on and through the internet. What are these bans achieving and what harm is being done in the process?
I thank Senator Leyonhjelm for his prior notice. As colleagues would know, the National Classification Scheme is a joint responsibility of the Commonwealth in conjunction with the states and territories. I am advised that the Classification Board can only refuse to classify content in very specific circumstances which are outlined in the National Classification Code and guidelines. The code and guidelines require that classification decisions are to give effect to certain principles, including that adults should be able to read, hear, see and play what they want but also to take into account community concerns around violence and, particularly, sexual violence.
Refusing to classify content helps to prevent the exposure of children and the public to very high-impact content, including material that promotes terrorism, crime and violence in the community and child exploitation material. A decision by the Classification Board to refuse to classify content is not taken lightly. So far this year, the board has not refused to classify any films, computer games or publications submitted by industry. A decision to refuse classification can be reviewed by the Classification Review Board. It is also important to point out that, under the national arrangements, the enforcement of classification is the responsibility of the states and territories.
I accept that the online environment presents different enforcement challenges to bricks and mortar stores. But there are steps that we can take. For example, our international age rating category tool that we use to classify online, mobiles and games, including on Google Play, requires a commitment from participating distribution platforms to not sell refused classification games to Australians based on geocoding. I understand that there is a very high compliance with this requirement.
Senator Leyonhjelm, a supplementary question.
The Australian Classification Board can also classify films as X18+. In all states except Western Australia an adult can legally buy and possess X18+ rated films, yet in no state is it legal to sell such films—not even in 18+ adult retail stores. Does the board's use of X18+ classifications serve, in practice, as a further ban that hurts domestic stores compared to foreign and online retailers?
I am advised that each state and territory is responsible for regulating the sale and exhibition of X18+ films in their jurisdiction. As I mentioned earlier, the classification scheme is jointly administered by the Commonwealth with the states and territories. On this particular issue, any future changes to the X18+ category would need to be made to state and territory laws.
Senator Leyonhjelm, a final supplementary question.
Minister, do you think there is anything we can learn from the Chinese about censorship in the age of the internet?
I take it there is a certain rhetorical flourish there! Australia's National Classification Scheme is designed to reflect Australian community standards and expectations. We look at what our overseas counterparts are doing in classification, and our priority is to identify better ways to provide Australian consumers with quality information so that they can make informed choices. Our focus and our priority is about equipping consumers with better information; it is not about censorship. But the senator is quite right to point out that the age of the internet creates particular policy challenges. My department is currently working with states and territories on ways to modernise our classification scheme in light of technological and industry changes, and I would be very happy to welcome Senator Leyonhjelm to the Classification Board office in Sydney to receive a personal briefing on these matters. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister confirm that under his education package, which his government's own documents state will result in a $22 billion cut to schools, schools in the Northern Territory, the most disadvantaged schools in the nation, will have their funding cut by $80 million over the next two years?
I am very happy to confirm that, in terms of schools in the Northern Territory, there will be clear funding growth. Across all schools in the Northern Territory, funding will grow from $348 million this year all the way up to $610 million by 2027. For government schools in the Northern Territory, that funding is forecast to grow from $191 million this year all the way up to $261 million by 2027. In relation to a per student figure in the Northern Territory, that is forecast to grow from around $8,360 per student in 2017 to around $11,870 per student on average by 2027.
These are all clear figures of growth. And, notably and correctly, the highest level of per-student funding in the country is currently for students in the Northern Territory and under these reforms will continue to be for students in the Northern Territory by a long, long margin. It is befitting, noting and reflecting the very particular needs in the Territory as a community with large numbers of Indigenous students, with large numbers of students facing particular issues of disadvantage, and with many schools operating in very remote areas with very small school numbers, that it receives the highest level of support in the nation on a per-student basis that continues to grow into the future and will be maintained as such.
Senator McCarthy, a supplementary question?
How is it fair that, under the minister's education package, schools in the Northern Territory will see an $80 million cut, while Geelong Grammar will get a funding increase of $16 million?
I refer the senator to the answer I just provided, which details how it is that funding for schools in the Northern Territory grows each and every year into the future, how it is that it grows quite significantly. And, in terms per-student funding for the likes of Northern Territory students versus Grammar, as I said, funding for students in the Northern Territory is higher for students in government schools than for those in any other government system in the country, and for those in independent and Catholic system schools it is higher than for those in any other Catholic or independent system in the country, which is rightly reflective of the higher needs in the Northern Territory.
Senator McCarthy, a final supplementary question?
Isn't it clear that the Australian Education Union is correct when it says that 'Turnbull's education cuts are a disaster for our kids'?
I think it was clear yesterday, as we saw the Australian Education Union start to fracture, with divisions coming from Western Australia, with their ridiculous scenario of the South Australian Education Union head coming out and saying, 'Actually, perhaps we should give this a go'—before, obviously, Senator Wong or others leant on them to make sure that they did not do so, that they backed down from that. But of course the former president of the Education Union went out strongly yesterday and spoke the truth and described it as a real opportunity to put in place funding reform, to put in place an equitable funding regime. They were the words of the former president of the Australian Education Union. That was somebody speaking clearly and honestly, arguing for needs based funding, and that is exactly what the Turnbull government is seeking to deliver.
My question is to the nation's best ever Minister for Regional Development, Senator Nash. Can the minister update the Senate on the coalition government's record investments across regional Australia since the 2016 election and how it is delivering on all of our commitments to ensure that rural, regional and remote communities continue to grow and prosper into the future?
I thank Senator Back for his question and, even more importantly, for his service to the Australian people. We will miss him very, very much. As Senator Back knows, it is in the coalition's DNA to look after rural and regional Australia. There is no doubt about that. We have wasted no time in implementing our regional agenda. We have seen the Regional Australia Ministerial Taskforce—something probably never even thought of by those opposite—chaired by the Prime Minister, pulling together all of our cabinet ministers to focus on regional Australia and to deliver even more for regional Australia.
We announced our Regions 2030: Unlocking Opportunity strategy. We on this side of the chamber in the coalition recognise the enormous opportunity out there in the regions that are ignored by the Labor Party. We have seen over 450 separate measures for regional Australia across all our portfolios through that regional task force, through the Regions 2030 process, through the budget process. And the coalition is very proud of that. We are very proud of what we are delivering. We are seeing $8.4 billion to deliver the Inland Rail, to actually build it. It has taken the coalition government to do that.
We never saw it under the Labor government. We are seeing it under the coalition government: $220 million for the regional jobs and investment packages going out to 10 regions, for the first time delivered and driven by local people in their local communities. Unlike those opposite, we recognise that the best solutions to the challenges and the best ideas going forward come from those communities themselves. There is almost half a billion dollars in this year's budget for regional projects, an extra $200 million for the Building Better Regions Fund and, for the first time, a large regional projects fund, which is going to deliver even more for the regions.
Senator Back, a supplementary question.
I might have to review that decision to go! Can the minister outline to the Senate how the coalition government's policies are improving the lives of all regional Australians, no matter where they live?
All of our policies are delivering even better outcomes for people out in the regions, in communications in particular. We have worked even harder over the last year to fix the NBN mess left to us by the previous, Labor, government. We have doubled the capacity of the satellite service by bringing the second Sky Muster satellite into use. I note that those opposite were going to leave the second satellite just bobbing around up there as backup if they might need it. We actually decided to utilise it so we could deliver a better service to the Australian people through the NBN. We have expanded the fixed wireless footprint. Sky Muster has stabilised with 90 per cent fewer outages than last year. That fixed wireless rollout will be completed by the end of 2018. It is the coalition that is continuing to deliver for the regions, and it is those on this side that are going to provide a brighter and stronger future for regional Australia.
Senator Back, a final supplementary question.
Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to regional development?
Indeed I am. The first we saw from the opposition leader, Mr Shorten, in his budget-in-reply speech. How many times do you think he said the word 'bush'? Zero in that speech. How many times do you think he might have said the word 'country' in his budget-in-reply speech? Zero. And how many times do you think the Leader of the Opposition said to the word 'regional' in his budget-in-reply speech, colleagues? Zero. And then we look at his speech yesterday with a local government assembly: 'But I tell you something else that drives this regional inequality. I am deeply dissatisfied and unhappy that in my home area of the western suburbs of Melbourne we have worse health outcomes than other parts of Melbourne.' They do not even know where regional Australia is, so it is no surprise that they cannot deliver for the bush!
My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. In response to an estimates question on notice, the Department of Education and Training revealed that funding for students with disability loading in Tasmania will fall from $36 million in 2017 to $24 million in 2018. Can the minister confirm funding for students with disability loading in Tasmania will decrease in 2018 by $12 million, or one-third?
I am happy to inform the Senate that, overall, funding for students with disability grows across Australia, and it grows by an estimated 5.9 per cent per annum as a result of the reforms that the Turnbull government is proposing.
The number of students doubled too
Indeed, as Senator Collins just interjected, the number of students identified under our proposed consistent methodology as students with disability also increases. Currently around 212,000 students across Australia attract what is a one-size-fits-all disability loading. It is based on different definitions from state to state. Our reforms will apply the new nationally consistent definition of students with disability, and, in doing so, that number of students who are in the different categories that attract loadings will increase from 212,000 students to 470,000 students. And there are changes to—
Order! Pause the clock. A point of order, Senator Gallagher?
Yes, a point of order on direct relevance again. It is a very specific question for the minister about confirming whether, in relation to Tasmania, funding for students with a disability will decrease next year by one-third. It is a very straightforward question to answer.
Thank you, Senator. The minister is giving general information about the overall national package, and I am sure he will come to the question in relation to Tasmania.
That general information was also very specific to students with disability. To give the context, there is a transition across all states, including Tasmania, from a specific state definition into application of the national arrangement. In relation to how funding is applied, the loading for students with disability is just one of the many components that make up funding for systems across Australia. In relation to funding for Tasmania, I can confirm for the Senate that funding for Tasmanian government students is forecast to grow from $183 million in 2017 to $190 million next year, and, again, will continue to grow. The Tasmanian government system—as, indeed, all Tasmanian school systems who will see funding growth under these reforms—
A point of order, Senator Brown?
My point of order is on relevance. The minister has 11 seconds to go. I want to know whether the disability loading in Tasmania will decrease in 2018 by $12 million. That is my question.
I was interrupted during the answer, but I thought I did hear him say something specifically about Tasmania. Minister, you have 11 seconds in which to answer the question.
Mr President, you did hear me highlight very specifically that disability loading is a part of the total funding pool for Tasmanian schools. That total funding pool rose year on year, into the future.
Senator Brown, a supplementary question.
Yesterday, the minister refused to tell the Senate whether the Prime Minister was incorrect when he rejected the assertion in question time on Monday that student disability loading in Tasmania was being cut. Given that the minister has had 24 hours to check, will he now tell the Senate: was the Prime Minister wrong? Yes or no?
The Prime Minister is dead right that funding for all students in Tasmania grows into the future.
Senator Brown, a final supplementary question?
He is not even trying to answer it. My final supplementary question is: how is it fair that the elite Lauriston Girls' School in Melbourne will get a 156 per cent student funding increase over 10 years, when student disability loading in Tasmania will be cut by $12 million—or one-third—in 2018? That is according to your own figures.
What we see opposite is, of course, an attempted game of envy politics—to pick out a school, to distort the figures in relation to that school, and to give no context about the size of the school or about the fact that the per-student funding provided to that school is, no doubt, significantly less per-student funding than is likely to apply to a range of other schools in more disadvantaged circumstances.
The facts, however, speak for themselves. There is funding growth in Tasmania for certain systems in Tasmania, including the Catholic education system. They received faster rates of funding growth than in other parts of the country to catch them up, because of the dud deals that were done in the past. All of this helps to ensure that, ultimately, we have a consistent, needs based application of funding across Australia, including in Tasmania, with more students, more money and funding and support for the students who need it most.
My question is to the Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield. Can the minister please update the Senate on the NBN's latest milestone achievements?
Thank you, Senator Reynolds, for your ongoing interest in the remarkable turnaround that is the NBN. Colleagues will recall that nearly two years ago NBN set its sights on an incredibly ambitious target of scaling network construction to reach 5.4 million homes and businesses by the end of June 2017. It is fair to say that there were some colleagues opposite who were a little bit sceptical. Indeed, the former shadow minister said it was the ramp that Evel Knievel would not be able to jump. Good news: Evel Knievel can move over, because NBN have made the jump. When you add the 101,755 premises that were made ready for service last week, the current ready-for-service stands nationwide at 5.414 million premises across Australia.
I know all colleagues will be very pleased that the NBN rollout has now been on track, on time and on budget for the third financial year in a row. Mr President, I can hear the cogs whirling in your head. You are wondering: 'How many financial and rollout targets did Labor hit between 2009 and 2013? Was even one of the rollout or activation targets that they set ever hit?' Quelle surprise! The answer to that is no. They hit zero targets. It is fair to say that this is one of the great corporate turnarounds in Australian history. This is the type of rollout progress that our predecessors were unable to even dream about when they left us in 2013 with a failed project around the nation.
Senator Reynolds, a supplementary question.
I thank the minister for that great news for Australian consumers. Can the minister outline how the coalition's multitechnology mix has contributed to this increased rollout speed?
I am very pleased Senator Reynolds has asked that question, because the capacity to hit all these milestones is a direct function of the multitechnology mix approach that the coalition has adopted. What we had from our predecessors was zealotry and theology; the approach that we have taken is one that is technology agnostic. We want to give all Australians access to the NBN as soon as possible. As yesterday's report in some of the newspapers notes, the fibre-to-the-node portion of the NBN was launched less than two years ago, and since then NBN has been averaging more than 100,000 additional premises ready for service each and every month. By making the NBN available to Australians sooner, we are unlocking the digital productivity which only comes about when the whole nation has it, which they will have much sooner under us.
Senator Reynolds, a final supplementary question.
Can the minister also explain how Australian taxpayers and Australian consumers are benefiting from the coalition's faster, more affordable NBN rollout?
As I mentioned, the multitechnology mix not only keeps the capital cost of the rollout down but also brings forward revenues by connecting paying customers more quickly. By directing NBN's strategy away from Labor's gold plated NBN we have avoided home monthly internet bill increases of up to $43 more a month. NBN now has the flexibility that it needs to get broadband upgrades delivered in the shortest time and at less cost. Just like Labor's energy policy leads to higher electricity bills, their NBN policy was a path to much higher internet bills. When we came to government we promised to deliver the NBN to households sooner and more affordably. The coalition have kept that promise. I would be remiss if I did not give great credit to my predecessor from the other place, Mr Turnbull.
I ask that further questions be placed upon the Notice Paper.
by leave—I ask Minister Birmingham for an explanation as to his failure to respond to yesterday's Senate order for the production of documents.
My understanding is the response was provided to the Senate Table Office earlier today.
Could I take note of that answer. Unfortunately, given the pace of proceedings—
You need leave to do that. Senator Birmingham has clearly indicated that an answer has been provided, but you can seek leave.
It is yet to reach us, and we would like it.
We will have that confirmed with the Table Office. If you are seeking leave to take note, I can ask the question of the Senate.
I seek leave to speak for one minute.
Leave granted.
I think I should highlight that the failure of this information to arrive for senators—the Senate did resolve that those documents be produced—highlights the unusual and very concerning situation we are in now that we have already moved into committee stage consideration of the legislation this information relates to. It is very concerning. It highlights that the pace at which this government is moving in relation to this legislation is alarming. It is not good policy development process. Senators are responding without adequate information and, indeed, the government's record in providing information is very alarming. I understand that the Table Office has confirmed that they have not received the answer. Given that Minister Birmingham indicated that he had indeed provided it, it is very alarming.
The minister has provided a response, in the form of a letter, which will be tabled this afternoon.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Education and Training (Senator Birmingham) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to schools funding.
This motion relates to a lack of information and the poor capacity available to senators to make very serious decisions about what education arrangements may indeed apply for the next six to 10 years. It simply is not good enough.
The minister was unable to provide answers to questions from Labor senators today. He gave the same stark response he has given time and time again—ballpark growth figures, he claims. I would highlight that he has not yet made the clarification that he needs to in relation to his comments in question time yesterday. In question time yesterday he claimed that Catholic Education would get a growth in their share. This is simply untrue. At the time Senator Brandis was not listening properly and thought the point was a different one. The issue is that the minister should have come back to this chamber to clarify that what he put in answer to Senator Farrell was simply false. There is no growth in share for Catholic Education. That is why we have seen those figures about the loss of funding that those schools face over 10 years.
What the minister did refer to today is what has been coined, and indeed what I highlighted, the 'fantasy figures' that were used in the school funding estimator. I think it is useful to take senators through exactly why The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and Fairfax Media reported those fantasy figures. What the minister did in that case, and what the department did—which is quite concerning, given that the department responded to requests to present information that way—was to re-base 2017 funding figures, on the basis of a formula that will never apply to 2017. They have re-based the figures for 2017 in order to promote and pretend that there would be an increase between 2017 and 2018. This is why the Senate agreed to the order for the production of documents. What I understand from the President now is that all we have is a letter—who knows what that letter says—yet we are now in the committee stage of consideration of the legislation.
All this minister has done is to engage in closed-door conversations with some senators, presenting information that is not publicly available and probably is not credible, because the minister's record is not credible. We have all heard the expression, 'Lies, damn lies and statistics.' Well, that is what has been going on here. I cannot imagine—
Senator Brandis on a point of order.
Senator Collins has accused Senator Birmingham of lying. She must withdraw.
I believe that Senator Collins was quoting.
She was not, actually. She just said, 'Lies, damn lies … that is what has been going on here,' in direct reference to Senator Birmingham.
I do not believe she has impugned the minister. Senator Collins.
I understand why Senator Brandis is sensitive here, so maybe I should reiterate my point about the fantasy figures that are in the school funding estimator. To try to convince parents in schools that there is an increase involved in this funding, the government has rebased the figures for 2017 on the basis of a formula that will never apply to 2017. They then used those silly figures to compare with 2018 and claim that it is an increase in funding. Well, it is not. The department could not defend it. The department had to fess up about what was really going on here. That is why the government's figures in this area have never been regarded as credible.
But what is worse is this minister's and this government's failure to provide the information that should be available for all of us to assess what is really going on here. The minister uses national growth figures, national sector figures and hides the impact of his one-size-fits-all policy behind them. And that impact is very alarming. It is very alarming for Victorian schools. It is very alarming for Catholic education. It is very, very alarming for public schools. But as I said earlier, the arrangements in place for schools delivered an 80 per cent increase for public schools out of the additional Commonwealth-state funding arrangements. Now we only have state funding arrangements, and guess who gets the 50 per cent increase? Public schools get only 50 per cent now, whereas under the former arrangements it was 80 per cent. (Time expired)
Let me open by saying that Labor's position on these matters and the contributions by the senators are based on lies—great lies. The facts as presented by them are completely inaccurate. But it had me cast my mind back to a pop group in the 1960s and 1970s called The Great Pretenders. What we have now with the Labor Party in this place, and particularly with this legislation, is 'The Great Resisters'. In fact, everything the government has endeavoured to do over the last couple of years and certainly in the term of this current government has been resisted by Labor. There are no arguments, of course, on the merit of their argument, and never have they produced any alternative ideas. Many of these recommendations are in parallel to or adequately supplement ideas the Labor Party has presented in the past. However, when it comes from the government side, from the government benches, they will just resist it. They will say and do anything to resist the passage of government adjustments, particularly in the space of education.
We saw in the earlier parliament an enormous amount of effort over a very long period of time come up with some structural reforms around higher education and education generally, reforms that were supported by the greater majority of the universities around the country, reforms that would bring more equalisation into the space, more fairness in relation to funding and the abilities of those educational facilities to operate. And what happened? The Labor Party resisted the reforms. In fact, their resistance put paid to them. This is another effort here. Every one of their quotes in relation to these matters, as I have heard over recent days and since this debate commenced, has been very selective. For every negative quote they have produced, my office and the offices of colleagues on the government side have received strong, resounding endorsements, often from people in authority in education who are superior to the individuals selectively quoted by the Labor Party.
This is an area that has been crying out for some serious reform for a long period of time. This is an area that has required some sort of stabilisation around fairness and equity with the distribution particularly from the Commonwealth in relation to funding in this space. As is the case with large transformative policies at their introduction, not everybody will be happy. It is impossible.
We go to an election and a large part of the Australian population wants to support one line of ideology and the other wants to support another, so it is going to be impossible of course to bring about reforms that please everybody in the community. These reforms have been endorsed by very substantive, important and influential figures in the education marketplace and by schools—right across the board, whether it is public schools or private schools or indeed the very important Catholic education system, it has been largely supported. They do not agree with the issues that have been raised by Labor. There is no body to their resistance.
In fact it is, as we have seen, their practice over recent years to go from being the great pretenders to the great resistors. They pretend first; there are the crocodile tears about how we are somehow all going to be affected—partially sympathetic to reforms. This is how they go on, until of course we get to where the rubber meets the road. Then they slip out the side theatre and they change and come back as the great resistors, and their tune is completely different.
I just urge the Labor Party, and I urge our colleagues in the Senate, to sit and think carefully about this. If this reform opportunity is lost at this time, then what is going to happen is we are going to have the status quo for a long, long period of time and the inequities that this legislation deals with will remain and the students and schools that they pretend to represent will continue to be affected. (Time expired)
It has been an interesting debate, in which a lot of claims have been made. There is the suggestion that if only we would 'stop playing politics' with this everything would be all right. But of course those who make that claim expect you to agree with them, and the only position they claim is valid is in fact their position. I think Senator Lambie made a good point earlier today, when she said that, if the government was serious about getting genuine reform through, it would actually consult with the opposition and it would genuinely consult with the crossbenchers. Instead, what we have seen is simply a decision of government to make savings.
I also heard Senator Hinch earlier today suggest that there are no cuts being made, because the commitments that the Labor Party made were fictitious and were not actually there and, therefore, there could be no cuts. That does not then explain how the government's own documents talk about savings being made by these reforms. According to the government's own figures, these proposed changes represent a $22.3 billion cut to school funding, compared to the existing legislation and agreements put in place by the former Labor government in 2013. This difference is clearly detailed in the government's briefing document circulated to journalists on 2 May 2017. The document states that 'the legislation will see savings of $6.3 billion over four years'—that is the 2018-21—'and $22.3 billion over the 10-year period. That will be achieved by the government's plan.' So their own figures—Senator Hinch, and anyone else that is interested—demonstrate very clearly that these are savings and, therefore, they must be cuts.
But these things just cannot be done in isolation. As if people think that the federal government is simply picking arbitrary figures out of the air and apply that to school funding. These school funding agreements are agreements made with the states. They rely on commitments of states to match certain funding levels to that of what the Commonwealth is matching. So states have budgeted for this money. They have agreements in writing with the Commonwealth about the funding share that should proceed. These are in place. They are there. What this government simply seeks to do is reduce their share of the funding and expect the states to live up to their commitments, which they want to do. The Victorian government, incidentally, was not invited to appear before the Senate inquiry into this, and none of the state governments were. You would think that the states, being the biggest providers of education in this country, would have been invited to give some evidence before the Senate committee. Nonetheless, they made a submission.
Senator Brandis interjecting—
You would think you would hear from them, Senator Brandis. They are the major player in education in this country, and they do not even get an invitation to appear before the committee.
Did they ask them?
My understanding is that they did. This is what the Victorian government said in their submission:
… the Victorian Government became a signatory to the National Education Reform Agreement (NERA). The NERA was intended to deliver an additional $12.2 billion to Victorian schools between 2014 and 2019, with sixty per cent of this funding to be delivered in 2018 and 2019. The NERA was a landmark reform that enabled all schools across Victoria to access needs-based, equitable funding. It provided a solid foundation for both levels of government to work cooperatively to support growth and improvement across all school sectors over a six-year trajectory … Victoria has funded its full commitment of Gonski funding until the end of 2018. The Commonwealth Government’s new funding proposal leaves a massive shortfall for Victorian government schools of around $630 million in 2019 against the NERA, which will disproportionately impact on the most vulnerable schools and students. For some schools, this shortfall could equate to $1 million next year alone.
Again, the government, without any consultation with stakeholders, without any serious consultation, simply implements these cuts to education funding. This is not a government that is being honest with the Senate or the Australian people. (Time expired)
I too rise to take note of Minister Birmingham's answers at question time today. I think the appropriate place to start with any commentary on this is where it should be focused in this chamber at all times—on the best interests of all of Australian students. Sadly, listening to those opposite on this debate, clearly that is not where their best interests in the arguments lie. It is a tragedy for Australia and Australia's children that, instead of focusing on their best interests, they are focusing on their political needs. It comes down to this, quite clearly: you say you give a Gonski, but you cannot stand the fact that it is those on this side of the chamber who are actually delivering Gonski in full—fully funded, truly needs based, and without the 27 special deals that you concocted, which completely distorted the process.
That is not just my opinion. Let us have a look at what those who were on the original Gonski review and co-authored the report said. Last night, Kathryn Greiner, a Gonski review panel member, spoke on ABC. She was asked about her assessment of the political debate on Gonski 2.0. This is what the member of the Gonski review said:
I am very surprised about the Labor Party. They are behaving like naughty school children at the moment. They should be sat in the corner and given lines because they are behaving like children in that if they're not going to be the ones to implement the Gonski reforms when they had their opportunity—
They blew it—
then they seem to be spoiling it for anyone else to do that.
As I said, they cannot stand the fact that this side of the House is actually delivering the Gonski report and the intentions of the report. She also said:
… at the end of the day, my attitude and I think the attitude of any of us who were involved in the Gonski reforms, this is about the children.
Not those acting like children on the other side, but the actual children of Australia. Her advice to the Labor Party was:
Stop playing the political games and just get on with it.
She said, 'My gut feeling is that they want to spoil it, because they cannot be the ones to bring it to fruition.' I think Kathryn Greiner's comments are absolutely correct, and it has been absolutely evident in everything that we have heard from those opposite. I think it is a national disgrace that the interests of Australian children are being held hostage to the petty feelings of those on the other side—hurt feelings that they were not the ones to implement the report that they commissioned.
Let's have a look at not just what we are saying but what other members of the Gonski review panel have said recently, in addition to Kathryn Greiner's comments. Ken Boston, a Gonski review member and also a leader in education policy, said this month that it is a 'new deal of historic national importance'. He went on to say:
There are no grounds for opposition to the schools funding bill in principle …
And:
It will be a tragedy if the school funding bill is voted down in the Senate—
by those opposite. That is Ken Boston, the second member of the Gonski review. What did Bill Scales, an original Gonski review member, also say last month? He said:
I think these concerns are not necessarily well-founded.
… …
If those systems are educating children of great need, then they have nothing to fear.
He also said:
This has to be de-politicised. This is not a political issue ... And we shouldn't make that a political issue.
They are three members of the Gonski review panel. Let's have a look to see what Mr David Gonski himself said recently about this bill and about these amendments. After everything that those opposite have said and are still saying here today, hysterically and very stridently, against this bill—they have signs in their windows saying, 'I give a Gonski'—let's hear what Mr Gonski himself says about this bill and these reforms:
… I'm very pleased to hear that the Turnbull Government has accepted the fundamental recommendations of our 2011 report, and particularly regarding a needs-based situation.
… … …
… I'm very pleased that there is substantial additional money, even over indexation and in the foreseeable future.
If Gonski gives a Gonski then those opposite should stand up, be counted and deliver for the children of Australia. (Time expired)
I also rise to take note of Senator Birmingham's responses to questions from Labor senators today. First, I would like to absolutely support what Senator Marshall said in his contribution. We have people, and the minister in particular, talking about increases in funding when their own budget papers show us that it is a decrease in funding of over $22 billion. So I say to those senators who are signing up to pass this bill that they should look at their budget papers. They should look at what is in black and white. If you have over $22 billion in cuts, somebody loses out. We have already heard, through Senator Marshall, about the Victorian government's concern about $630 million, I think Senator Marshall said, in one year. In Tasmania, my home state, $60-odd million will be lost to the public education system in Tasmania.
I particularly want to talk about the question that I asked Senator Birmingham, which was about the disability loadings in Tasmania. I did not get a response to that, regardless of how many times we asked that he directly respond to the question. What the Department of Education and Training, his own department, said in a question on notice that was released—
Honourable senators interjecting—
This is the minister's own department. This is what the department said: 'In 2018 the government sector, government schools, will lose $8 million, the Catholic sector will lose $2 million, and the independent sector will lose $2 million. That is a decrease of $12 million. The minister here would not even confirm his own department's advice—the response to a question on notice. That is how much the minister is evading answering any direct questions. This is very important. Back home in Tasmania, disability loading has been a matter of intense interest over the last few days. People in Tasmania know, parents know, the advocacy networks know that this government is cutting $12 million in 2018 alone from disability loading. If you want to sign up for that, well and good. But this is what is really happening, and you need to understand what is really happening.
Last night, on ABC TV news in Tasmania, Ms Kirsten Desmond, the spokesperson for the Tasmanian Disability Education Reform Lobby, said: 'There should not be one Tasmanian senator who votes for this in its current form, because what they are voting for this funding being stripped out of schools for students with a disability.' Ms Desmond, like so many others, is appalled that this government, this minister, is reducing funding to students in Tasmania with a disability by $12 million in 2018 alone—and this from a minister and a government who pretend to support a needs based funding model. They are being very hypocritical in the position they have taken. Make no mistake, this is a massive cut for students in need in Tasmania.
The minister, in his answers to questions on notice, would not even confirm his own departments figures. I say to the crossbench and the Greens—I am not quite sure what they are doing—that they should have a look at the department's responses, have a look at the answers. They are different from what the minister is telling you. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan) to a question without notice asked by Senator Waters today relating to funding for domestic violence services.
It is somewhat disappointing that the minister was not really able to answer the questions that I put to him. This is not a new issue. I have been corresponding with the Minister for Social Services about this issue for more than 12 months. Indeed, just yesterday the Senate passed a motion calling for direct funding for Rape & Domestic Violence Services Australia given the potential funding cut that is hanging over their necks. For a start, it was disappointing that the government did not have that information to hand—but they call it 'question time', not 'answer time', for a reason.
The important issue I asked about was the fact that we have an internationally renowned, women-led specialist rape crisis phone organisation who, at the moment, deliver 1800RESPECT funnelled through a contract by MHS. The actual experts are doing the work but there is a middleman, which the government funds, MHS, which is a for-profit provider. They did not start off as a for-profit provider of course; they were privatised a few years ago. But currently we have a situation where Rape & Domestic Violence Services Australia, a call centre, is being managed by head contract by a for-profit provider. The union has run a campaign saying no-one should profit from rape, and I am fully behind that campaign. I think it is entirely inappropriate that there is a head contract that is potentially making profit off the back of Rape & Domestic Violence Services Australia. Unfortunately the minister had no difficulty with that concept—I was quite shocked that he did not have a problem with that concept—and, of course, he used it as an opportunity to attack the Greens. Well, I think he will find that most people think it is entirely inappropriate for there to be profit made from Rape & Domestic Violence Services. I would suggest that the minister is in the minority if he does not have a problem with that.
What we would like to see is the direct funding of Rape & Domestic Violence Services Australia, or RDVSA, who are the experts and who can provide the appropriate support for women who ring that emergency DV and sexual assault helpline. At the moment their subcontract is under review. It is by no means clear whether or not MHS, as the head contractor, will continue that subcontract. The government has effectively outsourced the decision to a private company. The government used to say, 'All right, MHS, you can deliver this service, but you must give the subcontract to RDVSA.' However, it has recently reneged on that condition. The government is basically saying: 'We do not care who you give your contract to. You can decide that. We do not really give a damn.' I think this is an extremely disappointing approach and response by this government, which has championed 1800RESPECT and which is right to so champion it. Do not now hamstring that very service by not dictating who is to provide that valid service.
The experts should be delivering this valuable service, because women need appropriate support when they make a call, often in an emergency situation. If their phone calls are not answered by someone with relevant trauma counselling expertise—and all the RDVSA councillors have relevant expertise and often in excess of 10 years experience doing this—and they do not get that quality response when they make that call and that first call is bungled then they may never call again, and it may in fact be a life or death situation for that caller. That is why we have been saying how important it is to have actual specialists answering these calls and why we are so concerned about the triage model that MHS have implemented, with the consent of the government, whereby less-specialised people are answering calls. They are answering the calls quickly and then deciding whether or not to refer them to specialised counsellors. We do not think that is working.
There have been an awful lot of complaints made about that triage process, which is why we have called for an investigation into it. Unfortunately, the minister did not have the details about whether that would occur, but it is clearly warranted on the facts. There are enough people who are saying this triage process is not working for women, including the women themselves, and we just cannot dice with people's very wellbeing and lives for a matter as important as the rape and domestic violence counselling support phone line. So I urge the government to directly fund the actual experts who can help women when they call this rape and domestic violence support hotline.
Question agreed to.
It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 18 June this year, of Mary Shirley Walters, a senator for my home state of Tasmania from 1975 to 1993. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate records its deep sorrow at the death, on 18 June 2017, of Mary Shirley Walters, former senator for Tasmania, places on record its appreciation of her service to the Parliament and the nation and tenders its profound sympathy to her family in their bereavement.
Shirley Walters was born on 31 August 1925 in Sydney. She was the second of the three daughters of Eric and Mary Harrison. She was, in every sense, a daughter of the Liberal Party because she had a deeply political upbringing. Most of her childhood and early adult life took place in the shadow of her father's significant parliamentary career.
Eric Harrison—or Sir Eric Harrison, as he became—was elected as the member for Wentworth in the other place in December 1931. He was later to become the deputy leader of the United Australia Party and he was the first ever deputy leader of the Liberal Party, serving from the formation of the party in 1945 until his retirement from parliament in 1956, making him, until Peter Costello overtook his record, the longest serving deputy leader of the Liberal Party. Sir Eric Harrison held a number of significant ministerial positions in five non-Labor ministries: The Lyons government, where he was Minister for the Interior; the Page government; the first Menzies government; the Fadden government; and the great postwar second Menzies government, where he held a number of defence related portfolios, among others.
As a young girl, Shirley Walters experienced her first taste of politics by her father's side, campaigning from the back of a truck along the streets of his inner Sydney seat. As a young woman, she witnessed close hand her father's career as a senior cabinet minister. After completing her schooling, Shirley Walters found employment in the accounts department of the Rural Bank, but soon found that work unfulfilling, so she left the bank to begin nursing training at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney, where she worked until her marriage to Dr David Walters in 1949. Shortly after their marriage, the couple relocated to Hobart, where Dr Walters established an obstetrics practice.
All her life, Shirley Walters was politically engaged and deeply committed to community service beyond politics. However, it was only in the 1970s she would become active as a professional politician. The 1970s was a decade of rapid and—in the eyes of many—radical social change, epitomised, perhaps, by the election of the Whitlam government, which left many conservative Australians concerned for the future of the nation and most Australians astonished at the folie de grandeur of Mr Whitlam. Reflecting in her valedictory speech on her inspiration for entering politics, Shirley Walters recalled quite clearly that she had had a driving force, and that driving force was Whitlam. We knew that something had to be done at that time, because great changes were occurring very quickly and very radically, and people were frightened. So, in 1975 Shirley Walters answered the Tasmanian division of the Liberal Party's call for preselection nominations for the forthcoming Senate election.
At the double dissolution election following the dismissal on 13 December that year, Tasmania returned five Liberal senators of the 10 Senate places then available. Shirley Walters was elected the fifth. This made her the first woman ever to represent Tasmania in the Senate. Such was her popularity within the Tasmanian Liberal party and the wider community, that, as Senator John Watson remarked on the occasion of her valedictory, it soon became apparent that the No. 1 position was for her. She would go on to lead the Tasmanian Liberal Senate ticket at the 1977 election as well as securing the safe second position on the Tasmanian Liberal Senate ticket for both the 1983 and 1987 elections.
Throughout her nearly two decades long Senate career, Shirley Walters was a forceful and articulate advocate for her adopted state of Tasmania and also for issues of conscience and moral issues, which she held dear. She was proudly, unashamedly, a moral conservative. In her first speech to the chamber she remarked that, 'The people of Tasmania are now looking forward to the Liberal government for the equality that our Constitution affords us.' Although she remained a loyal stalwart of the party throughout and beyond her time in this place, she never shied away from what she believed to be her fundamental commitment to the people of Tasmania, crossing the floor on a total of 14 occasions throughout her career. The Fraser government in particular, was a government notable for a large ginger group of Liberal Senate backbenchers, of which Shirley Walters was one. Most notably, she voted against the Constitution alteration bills of 1977 and, in particular, the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill of 1977, which would have required that all elections for the Senate be held simultaneously with elections of the House of Representatives. She believed that that would have diminished the power and authority of the Senate as well as being inimical to the interests of a small state like Tasmania, the Senate being, in her firm opinion, as the founding fathers had ordained it to be, the states house. In the debate on the bill on 24 February of that year she declared herself to be 'totally opposed to this bill' and 'firmly committed to the independence of the Senate and the unhampered voice of the smaller States'. She observed:
The Senate is the most significant part of the federal structure. We remember from the great crisis of 1975 how the Senate demonstrated its power to reject a money bill. That power is fundamental and the way it is used depends upon the judgement of the Senate from time to time. These steps—
that is, the proposed constitutional amendment to require the simultaneous election of both houses—
represent the gradual undermining of the Senate preparatory to its abolition.
That was her warning. It is not to be forgotten that in those days the abolition of the Senate was the longstanding policy of the Australian Labor Party. The referendum was held on 21 May 1977, and although the yes vote was strong across the nation, with 62.2 per cent of ballots cast in favour of a yes vote, it was defeated by its failure to achieve the double majority required by section 128 of the Constitution. It was narrowly defeated in Queensland and Western Australia, but in Tasmania, where Shirley Walters led the campaign against the proposal, it was defeated by a whopping 158,818 votes to 82,785 votes—a margin of more than 30 per cent. So, we may say of Shirley Walters that one of her very important legacies was to be at the forefront of the salvation of the Senate, or at least the power of the Senate, from that obnoxious proposal of Mr Fraser's government.
In her maiden speech, Shirley Walters spoke of Tasmania's unparalleled natural beauty but equally of the acute economic challenges facing what she called the south island of Australia. Although many remember her for her staunch social conservatism and her defence of traditional family values, she could just as powerfully hold forth on an immense variety of diverse issues, from health policy to the complexities of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme and rising cost of living pressures. Indeed, such was her capacity to speak on a wide variety of topics that former senator Cheryl Kernot, teasingly no doubt, once referred to Senator Walters's unparalleled ability to speak on anything, for any length, at any time, the later the hour the better.
Senator Walters quickly established a reputation as a formidable and hardworking participant in the Senate committee system. She was chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare from November 1980 to February 1983, and thereafter served as a deputy chair of that committee until her retirement. During her tenure as chair and no doubt drawing upon her experience as a nurse she was instrumental in the production of landmark reports on youth homelessness, children in institutional care and drug abuse. She also served as chairman of the Library Bicentenary Publications Committee and as chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes.
From 1986 to 1988 Shirley Walters served as the appointee of the then Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, to the board of the Bicentennial Authority, established to oversee community activities commemorating the 200th anniversary of European settlement in Australia. However, she was perhaps best known for her efforts to address community concerns about the depiction of violence and the degradation of women in modern media, including through her ultimately unsuccessful Regulation of Video Material Bill, which sought to prohibit the sale and hire of X-rated content in Australia. Notwithstanding her independent streak, in 1988 Shirley Walters was appointed to the then opposition front bench as shadow parliamentary secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard.
When Shirley Walters retired from the Senate in 1993, she did so as a trailblazer for Liberal women. She remained active in the Liberal Party in her home state for the rest of the life. She had served as a member of the Tasmanian Liberal Party state executive in 1981 and 1982. She continued her activism within the Liberal Party branches in Tasmania well into old age. In 2003 she was awarded life membership of the Tasmanian division, the Liberal Party's highest honour. She regularly attended branch meetings well into her 91st year and would often, I am told, telephone her branch president between meetings to provide her knowledgeable input on a broad spectrum of policy.
I met Shirley Walters. I cannot claim to have known her well, but I can well understand why the word often associated with her was 'formidable'. She was a formidable advocate kept for conservative causes, but through her kindness and intelligence she won the respect of her peers from every section of this chamber. She entered politics, as I have said, in reaction to the Whitlam years and in defence of the great values: love of country, of family, of individual freedom, of respect for the constitution, of small government, the values which had inspired the Liberal Party over the generations. As her opposition to the 1977 simultaneous elections referendum showed, she had a very healthy respect for the powers and constitutional status of the Senate.
In her valedictory speech to this chamber, Shirley Walters said, 'I decided that I really loved my country and that I was going to do something about it.' So she did. She will be sadly missed by all who knew her, but most particularly, of course, by her four children, Rob, Pam, Susie and Jim, her 13 grandchildren, three great-grandchildren, to whom, on behalf of the government, I offer our sincerest condolences.
I rise on behalf of the opposition to acknowledge the passing of former senator Mary Shirley Walters, who passed away last week, and to convey, on behalf of the opposition, our condolences to her family and friends. Mrs Walters served in the Australian Senate from 1975 until 1993 and was, significantly, the first female senator to be elected from Tasmania. She was a woman of conservative values, and combined with the encouragement of business as central to employment growth she maintained a strong commitment to supporting families throughout her time in public life. Senator Brandis has outlined in much more detail what I was going to advert too, which it is that she was a woman of very strong Liberal pedigree. Her father, Sir Eric Harrison, was a minister in the Menzies government before resigning to become the Australian high commissioner in London.
Born in Sydney in 1925, Mrs Walters trained as a nurse before her marriage to David Walters. At that point she left the paid workforce to take on, proudly, the role of caregiver in the home. However, she entered politics, spurred on by her negative reaction to the policies of the Whitlam government. Elected in the double dissolution of 1975 that formally swept that government from power following the dismissal, she would go on to be elected again in 1977, 1983 and 1987.
Mrs Walters was well placed to become a consistent contributor on matters concerning health policy and family life during her time in the Senate. This is reflected in her committee service, including the Social Welfare and Community Affairs committees, of which she was a member for virtually the entire Senate career. She recognised the influence she could have on policy from this position. She was not afraid to maintain her strident political positions, even when they conflicted with party policy. She crossed the floor on 14 occasions throughout her career, which seems an extraordinary number in today's world. This inevitably had an impact on her career within the parliamentary party, although she did serve as Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition from 1987 to 1989. She was a loyal Tasmanian and, if you read her speech, she speaks at great length about her home state, saying that it was without doubt the most beautiful of all the states in the Australian Commonwealth and essentially daring anyone who disagreed to have an argument with her.
Honourable senators interjecting—
I am surrounded by others who are cheering that.
She was also an advocate, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate has said, for the Bass Strait freight equalisation scheme. Interestingly, if you do read her first speech, you can see her advocacy for that ab initio, as it were, from the beginning seeing it as critical to the Tasmanian economy. Unsurprisingly, she championed the rights of the smaller states and the place of the Senate in our constitutional framework as a defender of these rights.
If there were ever any doubt that Shirley Walters stood resolutely behind the values and position she campaigned on throughout her time in the Senate, I think that was put to rest by the then Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Gareth Evans, when he spoke on her valedictory in 1993. He commenced with an honest but friendly appraisal, saying, 'A Liberal reformer she ain't' and describing her as 'a campaigner for every Tory value I deeply deplore'. What I would suggest is that that demonstrates that Mrs Walters was an extremely effective campaigner for conservative values during her time in the Senate. Senator Evans went on to reflect that, despite the terrible things they had said to each other over the years, there was never any malice. He said:
She has believed fiercely in a series of particular political objectives, she has been as tough as nails in this place in pursuing those objectives, but she has always been thoroughly charming and pleasant personally and impossible to hold a grudge against.
I think they are fine words from a political opponent.
In keeping with the assessment of her character by Senator Evans, then Senator Walters spent much of her own valedictory thanking the very many people who had provided assistance to her over her 18-year career. After she left the Senate, she remained active in the Tasmanian division of the Liberal Party and was awarded, as Senator Brandis has outlined, life membership in 2003, of course a very great honour.
Regardless of whether or not she would have accepted the label, Shirley Walters was a trailblazer and she left her mark as a passionate advocate for her home state of Tasmania and for the conservative values that she considered core to the Liberal Party. We again extend our deepest sympathies to her family and friends following her passing.
I rise on behalf of the Nationals in this place to offer condolences and to pay my respect to former senator Shirley Walters, who, sadly, passed away earlier this week. I would also like to associate the Nationals with all the remarks that have come before in the Senate debate.
Shirley Walters made a tremendous contribution to the nation as a nurse, a senator and a mother. She grew up with politics in her family and had remarked that she had campaigned for her father, Sir Eric Harrison, in Sydney when she was a teenager when he was the member for Wentworth. Her time in nursing did draw some interest in this place when she remarked that she had used heroin some years ago—although later did clarify that she was referring to her patients.
As others have remarked, Senator Walters was the first woman to be elected in the Senate from the state of Tasmania, and we pay respect to her for that remarkable achievement at that time in this place. Just like other women who led the way—Senator Tangney, the first ever woman elected to the Senate or, from my own home, my good friend Senator Trish Crossin—these women were role models for their families and communities and for this nation. Shirley Walters showed all Tasmanian women what was possible, and the Senate and the rest of Australia is better for her efforts.
Elected in 1975, she was at the forefront of promoting better outcomes for Australian women and remarked in 1976 that 'if women are disadvantaged then the whole of Australia should be concerned'. I think it is this sentiment that goes to the heart of our responsibilities as senators in this place. We are privileged to get the opportunity to serve the nation. Senator Walters, by all accounts took a very vigorous and honourable approach to her service to the nation.
She was a very practical senator and took a very pragmatic approach to politics, focusing on economic issues for Tasmanians. She was always promoting marketing of Tasmanian made goods and ensuring that that was on people's minds when they made purchases. She was always talking about the vital tourist trade. As we already heard, she had a passion for the wonderful beauty of her country. She often spoke about it as a place to visit and a place to boost the Tasmanian economy. I acknowledge these are still issues that Tasmanian senators—like yourself, Mr President—are still advocating for today.
I do not think you can ever question what she stood up for and what she believed in. Shirley Walters stood up to the senior ministers throughout her time here and was known as the most prolific interjector in this place, with a nickname of 'Foghorn Leghorn'. But I think that, above all else, she was committed to her family, and I would like to pass on the condolences and sympathies of the Nationals to her family. They should be proud of the contribution and life of former Senator Walters. Vale Shirley Walters.
In paying my respects to Shirley Walters and my condolences to her family, I want to mention some personal reflections I have of Shirley Walters. I arrived in this chamber as a very fresh, new, somewhat shy senator from way up there in the bush, and I can remember Shirley Walters. She sat, as I recall, in the back row in that second stanza of seats there. As Senator Scullion mentioned—whether she was referred to as 'Foghorn Leghorn' I could not say—she certainly had a voice that would fit that description.
I have to say I was in awe of Shirley Walters, perhaps over-awed and, dare I say, even intimidated. If Shirley Walters said something to me or to the party in the party room, it would be done without question, because you did not argue with Shirley. Listening to Senator Wong's reflections about what Senator Evans, the then leader of the government, said, I can again see her. And she would say terrible things about him, which he took with good grace as he always did. She did not mean them but she was intimidatingly abrupt in the way she spoke.
I was in the Senate for three years with her. The description I always remember about Shirley Walters is that she was ramrod straight. She was ramrod straight in her posture, notwithstanding the fact that, as Senator Brandis mentioned, she did have a car accident, which must have been an inconvenience for her or more. It must have been very difficult for her, but she would never let that be known or accept any sympathy. She often had a walking stick and at times a neck brace. So it was difficult for her to move around. Her mobility was sometimes restricted. It never stopped her crossing the floor, though, when she needed to do that.
Shirley Walters, as has been mentioned, was yet another Liberal first. She was the first woman senator from the state of Tasmania. That was something she was proud of and something that we Liberals are proud of—we have a lot of firsts in those categories. I want to quote from some reflections by a well-known parliamentary observer and political historian, Don Morris. He has written some words about Shirley Walters. He reminded us that when Shirley was first elected to the Senate she said:
I think it would be wrong for candidates to be chosen just because they were women—or not women … I am definitely not a women's libber.
Further, she said:
During my campaign I was frequently asked questions relating to women. I replied then, and I still maintain, that women's issues are Australia's issues and Australia's issues are women's issues and any problems must be dealt with by all Australians. We women are not an underprivileged minority group as the radical feminists would have us depicted. We women in Australia are equal with our menfolk, and only those who would wish to denigrate our sex would have us believe otherwise.
I think they are very telling words from someone who understood the importance of women in public life and led the way of women in this chamber and, indeed, the parliament.
Senator Walters was described, again sourcing Don Morris's work, as:
… a Menzian Liberal. She held a strong commitment to supporting the family unit and to supporting business as a source of jobs and carried these principles throughout her own parliamentary career. Always active in the Senate chamber—
And I can vouch for that personally. She was—
renowned for the frequency of her interjections, she was 'an indefatigable, noisy, wearying campaigner' to those who opposed her, but she was respected across the political divide for her 'dogged determination' …
That is another image I have of Shirley Walters—dogged determination in whatever she did.
She was never afraid of prosecuting an argument, however unfashionable, even within her own party. She has, Mr Deputy President, as you and Senator Bushby would know, received the highest accolade that the Liberal Party can bestow upon anyone by being awarded a life membership to the party. I note Senator Brandis's comment, I think it was, that she still would attend branch meetings and would generously ring the president beforehand to share views. I can just imagine that it would not have been so much sharing views as it would have been her saying, 'Mr Chairman, you must do this, that and the other.' I know I can say that with Shirley, and if she is looking down on me she will not be offended by my saying that she was a very, very forceful person. It was a real privilege for me to have three years serving with her and understanding a lot about different approaches to the Senate. She had commitment to the Senate, commitment to her own state of Tasmania and commitment to Australia. Shirley, may you rest in peace and, again, my condolences to your family.
I rise to also support the motion of condolence moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and to add a few words of tribute to the life and work of the late Shirley Walters, both on my own behalf and on behalf of my fellow Tasmanian Liberal senators, Senator Abetz, Senator Duniam and, of course, you, Mr President.
Shirley was, as has been mentioned, a trailblazer for women in politics in my state, although, as hinted at by Senator Wong, she scoffed at the very description. She was only the 12th woman to be elected to serve in this place and the first woman of any party to be elected as a senator for Tasmania. But in 1975, when she was preselected in a winnable position on the Liberal Party ticket and the Launceston newspaper The Examiner asked her about being a woman going into politics, she responded that she had stood because she felt that she had the skills that would be useful, not because of her gender.
As noted by Senator Brandis, Shirley came from a strong political background. Her father was a significant figure in Australian politics in the first part of the 20th century. After a significant business career, when he stood for preselection for the United Australia Party in 1931 for the seat of Wentworth, the local party could not decide between him and the sitting UAP member, so they endorsed them both. Each stood and won a major share of the vote, with Shirley's father, Eric Harrison, emerging victorious. As has been noted, he became a minister in the Lyons government and went on to become Deputy Leader of the UAP and then the first Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party under Robert Menzies.
She married Dr David Walters in 1949, and they moved to Hobart. They had five children—Rob, Pam, Susie and Jim—and Shirley spent their formative years supporting her husband and bringing up the family. However, she also found time for community activities and was heavily involved in supporting the National Trust.
Although she declared that she was never a women's libber, it is interesting that many of the views that prompted Shirley Walters to stand for the Senate have now become mainstream. For instance, she felt that sex education was important but that it should emphasise the obligations of men, as well as a practical approach to contraception.
For years Shirley campaigned against pornography and was criticised by some at the time for being a wowser, and yet her strong view was that much of it was exploitative of women. In this view, she was well ahead of her time.
She was a strong defender of her state and, as noted already, crossed the floor a number of times when she felt Fraser government measures would be detrimental to Tasmania. However, she never did this in an ambush. She always told the leader of the day and the party room what her intention was, and she did not grandstand on those issues.
In the chamber, Shirley Walters was a frequent interjector, as we have heard from a number of speakers today, and knew just how to get under the skin of her political opponents. But she kept any of that stridency strictly in the chamber, and was ever courteous and friendly outside the field of political combat.
Having been a nurse, she brought to the Senate a strong interest in health care and, in particular, aged care. She and former Labor senator Pat Giles were a formidable pair. In the years of the Fraser government, she chaired the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes, with Pat Giles as her deputy, and after the election of the Hawke government they swapped places. As a footnote, I note that this was the first committee of the Senate to initially comprise only women senators.
Unlike many, Shirley Walters remained active in the Liberal Party after she retired from the Senate. She was a regular attendee and speaker at branch meetings, as we have heard already, state council and Senate preselection—and I personally remember her asking me challenging questions at my own first preselection in 2007. The Tasmanian Division of the Liberal Party rarely confers the honour of life membership, but, as we have heard today, she received that honour in 2003.
She also supported her husband in his own role as a respected alderman of the Hobart City Council, and of course she enjoyed being a grandmother to 13 and a great-grandmother to three.
Some senators may also know that Shirley's oldest child, Rob, has been a leading advocate for men's health in this country. He is very highly regarded and was the overseas medical officer to the Prime Minister during Julia Gillard's tenure in that office.
I know that her family are feeling her loss keenly at this time, and I send my sincere sympathies to all of them. On a personal note, can I say to all her family how grateful I was for Shirley's wise advice and support, and can I also say how proud they can be of their mother's significant contribution not only to their state but to our nation.
Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.
Pursuant to standing order 12, I lay on the table a warrant nominating Senator Williams as an additional Temporary Chair of Committees when the Deputy President and Chair of Committees is absent.
I seek leave to move a motion to vary the hours of meeting and routine of business for today and tomorrow.
Leave not granted.
Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to provide that a motion relating to the routine of business for today may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.
I also move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that that question now be put.
A division having been called and the bells being rung—
Mr President, I wonder whether we could be clear on which motion is before the chair.
Senator Brandis sought leave to move a motion to suspend standing orders. Leave was not granted. Senator Brandis then moved a contingent motion to suspend standing orders and at the end of that motion moved that the question be now put. So, the question is now being put—
Honourable senators interjecting—
It's a gag.
I need silence. I have appointed tellers. When tellers are appointed, senators must assume their seats. If any senator wishes to change to the other side of the chamber, I will suspend the division for the moment, for senators to cross to the other side of the chamber if they wish to. Otherwise, please take your seats. Order! Senator Brandis.
Mr President, I seek leave to withdraw that part of the motion that moves that the question be now put.
In that case, Senator Brandis, we then have the ability for other senators to speak to your motion. We will deal with this in a sequential manner. First of all, then, we will cancel the division. Is that the wish of the Senate?
Yes.
Secondly, we will now resume from the point, Senator Brandis, where you commenced your speech in relation to the suspension of standing orders. Do you wish to continue your remarks or have you concluded your remarks?
Yes, I will speak briefly.
Before we do that, is the Senate comfortable for the debate to continue on the suspension of standing orders? There being no objection, I call Senator Brandis.
I thank the Senate. It is not the government's intention to gag this motion, or any motion, but to move a motion for the orderly consideration of business. I can advise honourable senators that I will in due course move that the Senate consider the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 until midnight tonight if the debate has not earlier concluded, and, as well, if the debate continues tomorrow, 22 June, that the Senate adjourn after it has fully considered the bill, so that the Senate will sit either today or tomorrow until such time as debate on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 has been concluded. So this is—let me make this clear—an hours motion, not a gag motion.
Honourable senators know that this is a bill of the greatest significance. We know that the Australian Labor Party, disappointingly, have decided to do everything they can to get in the way of the Senate dealing with this bill. However, it is the government's wish, and we hope it is the wish of the crossbench as well, that this legislation be considered this week, before the Senate rises. Every argument that could possibly be heard or rehearsed in relation to the Australian Education Amendment Bill has been heard or will have plenty of opportunity to be heard so that there should be no reason, no reason whatsoever, why the Senate cannot sensibly make a final decision in relation to the passage of the bill before the end of tomorrow, or, if it be the wish of honourable senators, earlier than that. But it is the government's wish, and we hope it will be the wish of colleagues, that the bill be dealt with earlier than that if possible.
We understand—and I do not want to have to raise the heat of this debate on a procedural motion—that the Australian Labor Party, having failed to implement the Gonski report, resents the fact, as Kathryn Greiner said on Latelinelast night, that it falls to a Liberal government, a coalition government, to implement the Gonski recommendations. That is what Kathryn Greiner, a member of the Gonski panel, observed in her interview last night. It is a point that Mr David Gonski himself has made. The proposal now before the parliament captures the essence of the Gonski report. This is a rare opportunity for this Senate to break what is a decades-long public policy dispute about school funding so that we can for the first time have a transparent system, a needs based system and a nationally consistent system.
I want to use this opportunity to give great credit to my friend and colleague Senator Simon Birmingham, who is on the cusp of achieving what no Australian education minister, coalition or Labor, has ever been able to achieve before: consistency, transparency and fairness in the Commonwealth contribution to schools funding. I want to thank and express the government's appreciation of the members of the Senate crossbench who have been good enough to engage with Senator Birmingham and also with my colleague Senator Cormann, in particular, to hear the government's arguments as to why this is the right way to go to break the deadlock of decades, the anomalies of decades, over the Commonwealth contribution to schools funding. This is an historic debate. The state aid to non-government schools argument has been going in this country for more than 50 years, ever since the Menzies government in 1963 announced that it was going to provide state aid to Catholic schools. With this debate, we are now in the historic position, in the next two days, of concluding that half-century-long dispute.
I rise to speak against the suspension of standing orders for a very simple reason: we do not know what the deal is. We do not know what the policy is. We do not know what changes the government is proposing. All we know is what Senator Xenophon said in a contribution to the committee debate about what concessions he says he has got in order to sell out South Australian schools. That is all we know. But what the government is seeking—I say to the crossbench, you ought not participate in this—is for the Senate to proceed on a debate on a bill until conclusion, before they have even told us what the bill contains and what the policy is. So it is a very simple proposition: the Senate ought not be, at short notice—
Senator Macdonald, on a point of order.
So the senators are not intimidated, could you ask all senators to address the issue through you, as Chairman, rather than directly to individual senators.
I do not think there is a point of order there. I will just remind senators: comments should be addressed to the chair.
The comment to the chair is: Senator Macdonald really does have an unhealthy obsession with me, but I digress.
Don't kid yourself.
You are not my type either, mate, don't worry about it. Coming back to the question at hand, the reality is there is a very large policy issue on the table here, regardless of the view that Senator Hinch, Senator Gichuhi, the Greens, Senator Hanson and her team, or Senator Xenophon and his team take. And that policy issue is: what is the appropriate framework to fund Australian schools in the coming years? We have the view that the government's legislation is not good enough. We have the view that a fair deal for Australian students and a fair deal for Australian schools is in the national interest. We have a view that funding them $22 million less than the coalition previously promised—there was not going to be a dollar less than what the Labor government put in place—is the wrong thing to do. We have a view that saying that the majority of public schools will not reach the appropriate standard is not good enough.
But those are matters of substantive argument. In relation to the bill before the chamber, though, the Senate should not be required to debate and vote on a bill in relation to which senators do not know the detail. The reason they do not know the detail is that Senator Birmingham has, in a desperate effort to get the numbers through this place in order to ensure that Prime Minister Turnbull's leadership is safe, is running around seeking to do a deal with Senator Xenophon and other members of the crossbench. You are entitled to do that, but this Senate, as a legislative chamber, as a chamber of this parliament, is entitled—
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
Mr Acting Deputy President, I wonder if Senator Macdonald could possibly cease interjecting for at least 30 seconds?
I ask senators not to interject.
We'll meet you halfway—15 seconds.
Fifteen seconds, okay. We will try that. How about that? This Senate ought not be asked to debate and vote on legislation, to sit through the night tomorrow night, because until this finishes—
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
I would ask senators not to interject.
I am just pointing out—
But in any case I would ask you not to interject, Senator Macdonald.
It would be good, if he could possibly—
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
Point of order: standing order No. 193(3) is in relation to personal reflections. Senator Macdonald continually interjects on Senator Wong as she is making her contribution. It is highly disorderly. Robust exchanges are okay in this place, but there is a contempt from Senator Macdonald for female senators on this side of the chamber. He is constantly engaged in it. He is constantly disrespectful to female senators on this side of the chamber. The President asked today for some respect across the chamber, and it is about time this senator, who is constantly disrespectful, was pulled into order.
It is a point of order. Senator Macdonald, on the point of order?
No, Mr Deputy President. If Senator Wong objects to my saying she is precious, I withdraw it.
If you are not speaking on the point of order, please resume your seat. I am aware of that standing order. I am also aware of standing order No. 203, which talks about senators who wilfully disregard the instructions from the chair. I draw senators' attention to standing order No. 203.
I come back to the substance at hand. As I said, these are weighty issues which are before the chamber, because they go to the funding arrangements for Australian schools across the country, every state and every territory, for many years to come. Yes, they can be amended by a later government, and I hope they will be should they get through, but in the absence of that the chamber has to address very seriously and consider very carefully whether these arrangements are appropriate. What the Nick Xenophon Team, the One Nation team and others in this chamber are now going to vote for if they vote for this is a requirement that this debate be continued and finalised before senators know what the deal is. Senator Xenophon, you may think that is an appropriate way to operate in this chamber. I do not think it is. I think it is reasonable on something as important—
Point of order: Senator Wong is making an imputation as to what I am actually doing. I think that imputation is incorrect. There are a number of imputations. She is making an imputation about the conduct of the business of the Senate, which is not an accurate reflection of my views.
Senator Wong, on the point of order.
I am pleased if you do not vote for a motion that requires us to sit here to—
Is this on the point of order? I have not yet ruled on the point of order. I would ask all senators to direct their remarks to the chair. That may assist the chamber in proceeding with this motion that is in front of us.
I am somewhat mystified by the point of order from Senator Xenophon. If he is not going to vote to make us sit here all night on a deal that he has done that we have not seen then let him say so, but if he is then I submit to the Senate that my contribution is entirely accurate. You are making us sit here late tonight and tomorrow night on a deal that we have not seen that affects every school and every student in every state and every territory for years to come. I am not sure which part of that Senator Xenophon disagrees with, but what I would say to you is that is an entirely accurate explanation of the position that he and his team appear to be adopting, and I urge senators not to suspend standing orders to enable it to happen. (Time expired)
Colleagues, the motion before us is seeking to suspend standing orders in order to allow Senator Brandis to move a straightforward motion: that the Senate sits until midnight tonight in order to deal with the Australian Education Amendment Bill and that, if the Senate has not concluded its consideration of that bill by midnight tonight, the Senate will sit tomorrow until such time as it has concluded that business.
Colleagues in this place will have seen similar suspension motions many times before and similar proposed hours motions many times before. I think it is important to acknowledge that in seeking to suspend standing orders Senator Brandis is not seeking to move a motion that would curtail in any way, shape or form this chamber's opportunity to debate and to consider this legislation. The purpose of Senator Brandis's suspension motion is to allow substantive motions to be moved that would in fact facilitate the consideration of this legislation for as long as is required to do that legislation justice.
That is in contrast to previous approaches which have been taken in this place which have sought to use guillotine motions. I think those of us who have been here for some time well remember a period under the previous administration where, I think, 54 bills were guillotined in the course of a week. There was something in the order of 25 or 30 bills upon which votes occurred without there being any debate at all. I think it is to the credit of those senators who tend to sit at the far end of the horseshoe that they will not support motions that seek to deny colleagues the opportunity to debate. In fact, they will only support motions in this parliament which seek to facilitate the debate of legislation.
That is what Senator Brandis is seeking to do—to ensure that this important legislation can be addressed. This is not uncommon at this particular point of the legislative cycle, in the last few days before there is a significant break such as we have in the middle of the year. This sort of legislation does require to have the attention of this chamber, and Senator Brandis's motion will ensure that it has that opportunity. Importantly, Senator Brandis's substantive motions will ensure that there is not the capacity for any grouping in this chamber to filibuster legislation to ensure that the parliament or the Senate times out and does not have the opportunity to consider this legislation. Senator Brandis's motion ensures that there is not the opportunity to filibuster, but rather that the Senate has the opportunity to conclude this important business before it rises for the winter break.
This is important for a number of reasons, but the prime reason is to ensure that Australia's school education sectors have certainty for the future. Australian school education sectors want the Australian parliament and Australian Senate to conclude this matter so that they can budget and so that they can know where they stand. That is the certainty that Senator Brandis's substantive motions seek to ensure the Senate has the opportunity to provide. There is not the opportunity for contributions to be made in the form that would seek to use all of the available time in the ordinary Senate schedule. I would commend my colleagues to support Senator Brandis's motion that we suspend standing orders so that he can move his substantive motions so that the Senate can deal with this business and give the school sector certainty.
I will call Senator Gallagher and I will just explain why I am calling Senator Gallagher. I know you have been trying to jump, Senator Xenophon, but precedence is given to the managers in this debate, and that is the guidance Odgers' provides us, so I am going to call Senator Gallagher.
The chaos with which this motion to vary hours has been moved today leading to this debate is symptomatic of the chaotic approach this government have taken to education funding in general—from the way the deal has been dripped out, to the way they avoided going through education stakeholders and dripped out incorrect information to schools, to the way they have treated senators and MPs with contempt with the information they have been prepared to provide. They have provided some info to some senators and none to others, refusing to provide information.
Now we have had the Leader of the Government in the Senate come in here and move a motion that seeks to gag any debate on whether or not we should allow this motion to be moved, only then to be rebuked by the Nick Xenophon Team and told, 'If you don't allow a debate on this, presumably something else is going to happen, like withdrawal of support for the hours motion.' Then we saw the Leader of the Government in the Senate jump to his feet and say: 'Oh, whoops! Sorry about that. We will let you speak just for a minute before we push this through.' It is not the way to run a chamber.
This past sitting fortnight the opposition have worked cooperatively with the government. We have passed a number of bills. We passed 18 bills last week and another 20 this week. Then, as soon as we get to a point where we have some issues, this kind of approach is taken by the government—ram it through and punish those who have actually been working with them to get particular legislation through this place. And they are asking us to stay here without any information on the bill that is presumably going to have amendments made to it in the Senate. So we are all meant to hang around like we did last time, with the government enabled by the crossbench as usual. Every time the government want their way, they go and walk the corridors and get the crossbench to jump. The crossbench say: 'Extra hours? Yep, no worries.' It is always locked in. One Nation is always happy to assist. Senator Hinch is always happy to assist. And, more often than not, the Nick Xenophon Team are happy to assist as well.
Meanwhile, let's remember what happened with the business tax cut, the enterprise tax plan. We all sat around. I remember the day very well. I brought my bad hair to work that day. That day $19 billion, I think, passed through in about 20 minutes of debate after sitting here for hours and hours while the government tried to get their act together. I am presuming that is what is behind this motion too—that they do not have a deal or they might have a deal but they have not worked it out and they do not want to go home until they do have a deal. That is regardless of the fact that the department itself said there was no pressure to pass this legislation in this sitting and that it was desirable to have the new arrangements in place at the beginning of the spring sitting in August. That was the department's own advice in their submission—there is no rush. But this government want their way regardless of the conventions and appropriate conduct of this chamber, which is to allow for scrutiny. It is scrutiny of what at this point? What are we going to scrutinise? Does anyone have any information on what we will be scrutinising? Are we going to do it the same way? Will we have hours and hours of the government filibustering and trying to keep the debate going while other people are off trying to seal the deal and then, when the deal is brought in here, it will be rushed through in some government speech and we will all vote on it? Is there no need for the Senate to provide that scrutiny role?
We had the absurd situation yesterday where the government nearly ran out of business because they are so hopeless at managing their program. The only people who have been filibustering in this chamber have been from the government because the government cannot get their act together on legislation and finalise the arrangements for the education deal. The crossbench enable them every time. They do not have too. The department has said this legislation does not needs to be dealt with yet, that it is desirable for it to be dealt with in the first part of the spring sitting. Yet we are all here because the government have snapped their fingers and said they need extra hours. They cannot manage their program and they cannot finalise their arrangements, and enough of the crossbench are going to enable that to occur. Meanwhile, every kid in every school in every system is going to suffer for it.
I can indicate that I and my colleagues will be supporting the suspension of standing orders and the motion moved by Senator Brandis—
Surprise, surprise! There's a big surprise.
Senator Cameron said, 'Surprise, surprise!' I think it is important to put on the record that Senator Fifield I believe unintentionally misled the Senate earlier when he said there were some 25 to 30 bills that were rammed through. I remember that horror week. I think Senator Williams said it was more like 60 bills that were rammed through without debate and without proper consideration—gag after gag after gag. It was wrong. That was not how a parliament should legislate. What this motion does is to facilitate the committee stage, which will essentially be unlimited, so that the opposition and the crossbenchers and, indeed, other government members, can ask questions about this important piece of legislation. I know that Senator Collins, as the spokesperson representing the opposition in relation to this, has done an enormous amount of work, and I fully expect that her questions will not be filibustering but will be pertinent questions on the important substance of this bill. The very purpose of this motion is to allow—
Senator Cameron interjecting—
Senator Cameron is being uncharacteristically unkind. This motion is about fairness. It will allow an unlimited debate in the committee stage of this bill. I cannot see—
On what?
On the legislation that is before the parliament and on any amendments that are moved by any members, either government or non-government members in respect of it.
That is parliamentary scrutiny?
It is parliamentary scrutiny, because it will be an unlimited committee stage of this bill. That is why we support it.
I rise to speak against the suspension of standing orders.
Do you have new points to make?
That is a very good question, Senator Brandis. Yes, we have plenty of new points to make, and we may indeed have many more new points to make if we get a look at the deals that are being constructed around this building right now. But the chance to properly scrutinise any of the amendments coming forward is something that you are trying to interrupt through this process right now. I have not been in this chamber to see some of the things that you guys have been talking about as practice of the Senate, but I have been in classrooms for 20 years, and I know how important it is—
Senator Macdonald, on a point of order?
Mr Acting Deputy President, three times you have warned senators to address their remarks through you, for an appropriate reason, that is so that we can get on with the debate. Could you tell this speaker to do the same?
I ask all senators to direct their comments to the chair.
I have been in classrooms for 20 years, and I know the importance of the debate that should be had around this piece of legislation and the amendments that we hear are in the wind and that apparently are going to land here at some point in time. The level of scrutiny that they need to have cannot be enabled by having an hours motion to help us debate them through the night. They need far more scrutiny. Senator Brandis, you actually said that it has taken half a century to get to this point. You think that that is a good achievement. If it is that significant, if it has taken 50 years to get to this point, we should not be deciding it in one night. We should not be deciding it with senators sleeping on their benches, coming in here and getting half the information.
If we go to the reality of the way in which this government has dealt with every sector that is impacted—the government sector, the independent sector and the Catholic sector—we know why they want to get out of here in a hurry, and why the members of the crossbench should not facilitate it. This should not be facilitated, because there does need to be proper scrutiny. The department itself, who has actually told us the truth when the minister has not provided the evidence, has said that this does not have to come in to be resolved until the spring sitting.
As a teacher, for all the teachers and all the parents who have contacted me and your offices, you should reject this. It is so important for all the children of this country that we give this bill proper and fair scrutiny, not through the middle of the night. This is a dirty arrangement that is not necessary. This does not need to happen until September, and it is only happening because the government think they can corral the group of people in this room and make a decision and that is a better chance of getting a deal with you right now than if they have to go out and actually speak to the stakeholders that they have so offended in the process of coming to this moment.
Is there a point of order, Senator Macdonald?
Mr President, the chair has already warned speakers five times that they should address their remarks through the chair. They do that for a purpose, which is so that the debate can proceed on a proper basis. I ask you to ask speakers to address their remarks to the chair.
Thank you, Senator Macdonald. That is correct. All senators must address their comments to the chair—not through the chair but to the chair, and not across the chamber. Senator O'Neill.
I would indeed appreciate proper debate, particularly on a bill of such importance as this.
Well, vote for the motion.
What you are proposing is not proper debate, Senator Brandis. This government actually believes that they can corral and get a vote in here tonight, and they want that to happen. They do not want to take their department's advice, which is to wait until 1 September. They think they can push this deal through now, because if they do that they will not have to speak to the National Catholic Education Commission, nor to the teachers across this country, nor to the representatives of every state and territory P&C and answer their questions. They will not have their dodgy figures scrutinised over the next few weeks. They are trying to snow the Senate. They are trying to suppress debate and proper scrutiny by pushing this through in the most outrageous manner.
There are some bills where I suppose this happens, but we are talking about the children of this nation. Fifty years in the making, Senator Brandis says. We can afford more than a couple of hours in the dark to make this dirty decision of this government. They have not proven they are worthy of the trust of the crossbench. They have betrayed promise after promise, and they have misled person after person and they have denied access to information. They stood up in here today and indicated that they were going to answer questions, but we have not even been able to get the documents with the facts. That is why you should not trust them to do this dirty deal in the next couple of days. We as the Senate should not be responsible. We need to get the whole of the community involved in the next three months, until September, to have a look at what this government proposes to ensure they are not pulling a swifty on anybody in this chamber. It is wrong. We should not support the suspension of the standing orders. (Time expired)
I just remind everybody in the chamber that this debate will be unlimited and the Senate can take as much time as it sees fit to debate this important legislation.
I think that comment from Senator Cormann—
Thank you, Senator Cameron, the time of the debate on the suspension of the standing orders has expired. The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Brandis to suspend standing orders be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:56]
(The President—Senator Parry)
Question agreed to.
I move:
That a motion relating to the routine of business for today and tomorrow may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the question be now put.
The Senate divided. [17:00]
(The President—Senator Parry)
Question agreed to.
The question now is that Senator Brandis's original motion be agreed to.
I move:
That—
(1) If by 7.20 pm today, the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 has not been finally considered:
(a) the routine of business from not later than 7.20 pm shall be government business only; and
(b) the Senate shall adjourn without debate after it has finally considered the bill or at midnight, whichever is the earlier.
(2) If by 2 pm on Thursday, 22 June 2017, the bill still has not been finally considered:
(a) the routine of business from not later than 4.30 pm shall be government business only;
(b) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm; and
(c) the Senate shall adjourn without debate after it has finally considered the bill or a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister, whichever is the earlier.
Pursuant to order, I now call Senator Gichuhi to make her first speech and ask that honourable senators extend the usual courtesies for a first speech. Senator, can I apologise for the delay in commencement, but at least we have everyone in the chamber for you.
Today, I, Lucy Muringo Gichuhi, happily stand before you as the first black African-born senator in the history of Australia. I am deeply honoured to be given the privilege of serving the people of Australia as a senator. To all Australians, I say thank you. It is with this sentiment that I honour those who came before me, faithfully leading Australia to build the outstanding nation we see today.
At this point, I would like to acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people who are the traditional custodians of the Canberra area. I pay my respects to the elders, past and present. I also acknowledge the Kaurna people in my home city of Adelaide. To my father, Justus Weru, my late mother, Agnes Njeri and all my siblings, I am who I am because of you. Thank you. To my husband, William, and daughters, Peris, Agnes and Joy Gichuhi, all I can say is thank you.
I was born and raised in Kenya. I have worked locally and overseas. I attended Hiriga Primary School, Kabiru-Ini Primary School, Mugoiri Girls Secondary School, Lwak Girls High School, the University of Nairobi, the University of South Australia and the University of Adelaide. I have professionally worked with Ernst & Young, Postbank, ActionAid, Madison Insurance Limited, the Auditor-General's Department, Kaylene Kranz International College and the Commonwealth Senate as a senator for South Australia.
There are some key things that I hope to focus on in my time in office as a senator. These are: education in a broader sense, family finance and welfare, senior affairs and aged care, and freedom of thought, conscience and belief.
On a warm summer day in 1999, I arrived in Australia for the first time. My initial impression was how different Australia was compared to the home I had left behind. In Kenya, the majority of people are black Africans. But here, landing in Perth, seemingly all the world races were represented in just one city. Right in that airport, I encountered Australians, Europeans, Asians and Africans from all over the world, living and working together harmoniously. I learned how beautiful it is when differences bring us together. Whoever we are, whatever we call ourselves, wherever we come from, it is this great asset of diversity that made me fall in love with Australia. The diversity of colour, race, cultural backgrounds and religion go towards making up what we believe it is to be Australian. We are all Australians. We do not have to conform to any one mould or image. We are whole through our many differences.
Nineteen years later, as a lawyer, I know that to migrate to a country and get citizenship in that host country is not a right; it is a privilege. I am proud to be a black African Australian. As a leader and as a senator, my role is to take my responsibilities seriously, showing respect and kindness to my fellow Australians. Landing in this south land, I understood most clearly that my central responsibility was to become skilled and equipped to do whatever was needed to grow a strong family, community and essentially to help build a stronger Australia. This is what I believe we are all called to do.
I believe that as a senator of this nation, one of the most important laws is to motivate and inspire people to be all they can be. To do this, many factors must be taken into consideration—of importance is freedom of choice, conscience, thought and belief. Every person has fundamental needs, whether they are spiritual, emotional, mental, physical, financial, relational, social or even political. They are all valid needs. Australia is what it is because we have the ability to have freedom of choice as individuals—a concept which was entrenched in the Constitution by our founding fathers. It is this vision of our founding fathers that I wish to help preserve.
I remember growing up on the beautiful slopes of Mount Kenya. Sometimes I would take my father's cows to graze in pastures near Hiriga plains. My young mind was free to wander. As I matured and became more self-aware, I found I had freedom to choose and think about anything I wanted. I even remember dreaming of the Australian merino sheep after a geography lesson in class 4. My father taught us to aim for the sun so we may land on the moon. Even though I was young, my mind allowed me to stretch and roam the possibilities that the world offered. I may not have owned a pair of shoes yet, but while dreaming of my future potential I discovered that poverty came in many differential forms, shapes and sizes. Wearing shoes could mean that walking to school would be more comfortable, but soon I realised that true poverty was when a person is unable to freely choose their own destiny. It is when a person does not have options. This could be the result of spiritual, emotional, mental, physical, financial, social or even political inhibitors. These inhibitors are often the root cause of true and absolute poverty.
My role as a senator is to ensure in any way I can, great or small, that Australia does not slip into the latter form of poverty. Most importantly, Australian civil institutions, such as the legal, political, electoral and socio-economic institutions, must remain transparent and accountable to every Australian.
One of the roles of the Senate is to continuously review and renew our legislation and other institutions as entrenched in our Constitution of 1901. I am touched that the preamble to the Constitution says in part:
… humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth …
The themes of humility, blessing, divine reliance, agreement, unity and permanence are dear and close to my heart.
There was a sense of rescue after landing in Australia. The first few weeks and months were characterised by wonder and excitement. On arrival in Adelaide, there existed a meet-and-greet program, which supported my husband, our three young daughters and me, providing us with subsidised housing and other types of supports. I saw good roads, free schools and education, and the availability of, and ability to use, simple household appliances!
Years later it is hard to imagine our experience with a vacuum cleaner. Our house in South Australia, located in Kilburn, was fully furnished. But there was a piece of equipment, which had the shape of a tortoise, stuck to the wall. For the first few days, we stopped our children from touching or even going near it until we worked out what it was. Two weeks later we had a house inspection, and the inspector complained that the carpeted floor was dirty. I explained that I was doing everything possible to clean it, demonstrating how my husband uses a broom to clean the floor. The inspector asked why we were not using the vacuum cleaner. We explained that we did not have one. He pointed to the tortoise-look-alike gadget that was resting in the corner of the room. Lo and behold, before he left the carpet was spotlessly clean!
Every day, I wonder how many spiritual, emotional, mental, health, relational, financial, social and political tortoise look-alikes are stuck to the walls of our life just because we do not recognise them for what they are. I will never forget discovering the most beautiful parklands. To this day, I still marvel at the beauty of our parklands.
The generosity of Australians fulfilled the vision I had as a young girl. I had faith in the ability of a person to nurture and support a fellow human being, just because they are human. I realised what a good system of governance could do for its people. President Abraham Lincoln's words in the Gettysburg Address came to my mind: a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Far away from home I felt safe, secure and free, despite having no locks or high fences around our house, which is what we were used to in Nairobi. I felt physically safe. Even though I had only a few dollars in my bank account, I knew I could raise a young family. I knew I was able to pursue my long-held dreams. I knew I could get a job. I would provide food and housing and, above all, give quality education to our children. It was a time I will never forget. As a senator, this is what I want to preserve. I desire for every Australian to experience the things I felt when I first landed. I believe every government should do whatever it takes to grant its citizens security, physical and otherwise.
Every rescue mission involves one difficult phase—the empowerment phase, or the pursuit of dreams. This is where the rubber meets the road. Having migrated to Australia as professionals with permanent resident visas, it took my husband and me less than six months to find full-time employment. The first challenge we encountered was when we realised that the school day starts at 8.45 am and ends at 3.15 pm, while work starts at 9 am and finishes at 5 pm. Clearly, one of us would have to give up full-time work to look after our three children. It was the first time in my life that I considered giving up my career, then as an auditor with the Auditor-General's Department. We chose to dedicate a significant part of my salary to securing day and after-school care for our daughters so that both of us could work full time. I wonder how many parents have given up work as a result of this mismatch between school and working hours. In 1974, in his first speech to parliament, referring to that year's federal budget, the Hon. John Howard said:
… it is quite clear that freedom of choice for parents is under blunt attack, and indeed it is under blunt attack.
To this day, one of my primary concerns is how to balance work and home life while raising young children. I think of the difficulties that parents face, especially single parents. I think of those who attempt to return to work after putting their children through school. I think of parents who do not have adequate superannuation in their accounts, simply because they chose the wellbeing of their children over employment. I think of those who cannot afford to buy a basic house for their family. I think of students fearing an enormous HECS debt. I am particularly saddened that families with special needs children suffer, given that their parents have little freedom of choice when it comes to their children's education.
This phase was one of the steepest learning curves I would encounter in my life. Managing my family's finances was part of it. It was at this point in time I became keenly aware that what is lacking in most schools' curriculum is the teaching of financial intelligence, legal awareness and personal leadership skills. Despite William having a bachelor's degree in accounting, he and I were no exception. Even with two incomes, we were not able to resist the offers of multiple loans—a home loan, personal loans, car loans and credit cards. Soon, we were stuck in the trap of paying huge amounts just to cope with these loans and the ever-increasing household bills.
After several visits to financial counsellors, banks and other financial advisers we were better equipped to understand this very complicated financial landscape. By continually seeking expert help from financial and legal professionals, we were able to avoid the welfare trap. I feel for many people who have fallen in and have lost hope of ever getting out. I remember the first time we found welfare money in our bank account shortly after our arrival in Australia. We were terrified because we were not used to receiving money for nothing from strangers. All I knew was that the only time you get money is when you work for it. I said to my husband, 'We will have to return it.' When we first attended the bank manager to inquire about it, we discovered the fact that we were eligible for welfare money because we had three children and no current employment. However, what we did not know was that if you have a job this money would cease because it is means tested.
The message was quite clear: I could choose to be a victim and receive a handout for a long time, or I could choose the more challenging but empowering road and find a job and learn how to balance work and family life. I did not have long to decide because by the end of that financial year I already had a welfare debt. At that point in time, it could have been very easy for me to depend on welfare to see me through the daily activities of life rather than actively update my qualifications and skills and seek employment. I quickly learnt a new term: means testing. I had to put an end to this tedious welfare-work dance. I chose to work, even if that meant going back to school and changing my career path to suit my circumstances. Every day, I wondered just how many people are caught in this trap because they do not have the option or freedom to choose a different path. Again, quoting John Howard, in his first speech, with regard to how that 1974 budget would affect ordinary Australians, he said:
They are not privileged people, but they are people who feel they ought to have the right to exercise this freedom of choice. That freedom of choice is under very, very severe attack …
For many people who are able and willing to work, the trap is between balancing their welfare receipts and any income they may get by engaging in employment. This trap creates stress on those who soon discover they are unable to find a way out. Welfare now becomes their only choice. This creates a welfare-dependent syndrome that could be intergenerational.
Sadly, it is not only individuals that are affected. Some companies and institutions have a corporate welfare mentality. We are witness in this current education debate. Christian, Catholic and private independent schools are currently jostling to keep their federal funding levels. The debate on the education funding methodology is confusing and complicated to the everyday Australian. How can we keep the education system accountable and transparent if we do not understand it? In South Australia, companies such as Holden, Mitsubishi and others have closed their manufacturing plants, while others like Coca-Cola have moved their location, because the government would not provide corporate incentives to help them remain profitable. Where is the sustainable business model?
As an accountant I believe the corporate welfare mentality should be traded for a sustainable business model mentality. Instead of just giving away money the government should be giving industry a sustainable approach, including better pricing of essential services, in order to retain existing companies and attract new ones. I have learnt that spending money you have not worked for fundamentally changes who you are and inhibits your capacity and ability to become all you could be.
As a senator, I know we have one of the best welfare systems in the world. I believe it could be better and more sustainable. But I would like to see that welfare does not disadvantage even one person who decides to work. Our Prime Minister, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, has said that a job is the best form of welfare. I agree. There should be checks and balances to help a person wean themselves off welfare effectively. Far too many people are feeling the weight of punitive measures from powerful institutions when they are unable to break from financial burdens and the welfare trap.
I come from humble beginnings. From my childhood my parents and teachers nurtured and guided me to accept and value a disciplined way of life. I will never forget my late mother's advice. She said, 'Always remember that as a woman you are the backbone of your family and, hence, community. As a woman the spiritual, emotional, mental and financial destiny of your family depends on your womanly wisdom.' Rest in peace, Mum. I miss you so much.
Every day after school as one of 10 children I had to share in the daily tasks. This involved milking cows, going to the garden to pick vegetables, picking coffee berries and sometimes babysitting my younger siblings. We would help each other to learn how to read and write while preparing ourselves for competitive school exams. We would sit around a stone fireplace on the dirt floor of our house and cook dinner while reading. With no electricity, we relied on the light of a paraffin lantern to do our homework. Sometimes, when my parents could not afford to buy paraffin, we used the light from the fireplace to do our homework. From this I learnt character and a strong work ethic, which would serve me well as a working mum with three young girls. It gave me a strong sense of sacrifice, respect, sharing, and the value of hard work.
These values gave me the courage to accept and deal with the challenges we encountered as new migrants. My husband and I face these challenges, as does every other working family, irrespective of their country of origin, colour or religious background. Without these values, my self-esteem would have suffered and I would have taken the easy road of quitting.
When growing up I had a great relationship with my grandmother. In a small two-room hut in a village called Gathu-ini, in Nyeri County, Kenya, my grandmother instilled in me all the wisdom a grandmother could through sheer love and storytelling. My grandmother lived alone, her other children and grandchildren occasionally coming to visit. I was one of those grandchildren who took turns in keeping her company during school holidays.
I had a special bond with my grandma. She taught me to cook. She told me stories. In that small hut, grandma and I shared her bed as the other room was where her goats and chickens slept. Sometimes the goats would stand around the fireplace while we cooked in tall stories. Occasionally, when my cousins came by, we would all sleep on the floor, next to the goats, by the fireplace. There was so much laughter and a lot of stories about anything and everything, including the Mau Mau Uprising. Grandma emphasised what it meant to be a woman, and the role of a mother and wife. We loved the humorous stories about relationships. One day grandma explained that the only part of the body a woman should use to make money was her brain. And because she explained in Kikuyu language, my mother tongue, we understood exactly what she meant. Needless to say, grandma was one of the solid rocks on which I stand. She taught me that the true beauty of a woman is her brains and that no-one should ever bully me for physical appearance, body, colour, size or shape. She explained that such things are completely out of my control. As a teenager, I hung on to grandma's words. I still do. The day my grandma died, aged over 100 years, I felt like a carpet had been lifted from under my feet.
In Australia, I encountered aged care when I worked as an international student liaison in a college that trained carers and nurses. When I look into the eyes of ageing Australians, having witnessed the dignity grandma had growing old, I wonder if they feel the same dignity, respect and freedom that I saw in grandma. The need to value and look after our seniors is central to any civil and noble society. The need for dignity and respect and freedom has to be maintained and preserved. The lack of a federally regulated staff-to-resident ratio for aged-care homes in Australia could be one of the main root causes of the many problems and sad stories that have been reported in the media lately.
As a society, we can never forget that our older Australians are the people on whose shoulders we stand. They worked and paid taxes so we could have the life we have today. I wonder why we can't tap into the human resources of our seniors. Our seniors could tell the young ones stories. My daughters lost the ability to have an active relationship with their grandparents when we migrated to Australia. Any social interaction that can link youth and seniors could help bridge the ever-widening generation gap.
Worldwide, a number of different models have been tried to better integrate aged-care residents with the community. One example is Europe, where retirement and nursing homes have been co-located with facilities such as schools, colleges, shops and community rooms to encourage this interaction. As a senator, I hope to be involved in any manner in reviewing the Aged Care Act 1997. This would put into place a system of continual review and renewal of the registration, to effectively take care of our seniors. I note that about 25 per cent of our population falls into the baby boomer generation. Is our aged-care system ready to provide for more than five million Australians who will soon need it? I would like to be a voice for our seniors.
Australians, let us transcend culture to make a difference—like my inspiration, Queen Adelaide, who, in 1818, migrated to England from Germany and made a difference by restoring honour to the English court and insisting on educating the young. Culture is much more than just the colour of a person. We have special practices and traditions that no longer serve us in 2017. We must take a strong look at the emotional and mental habits that prevent us from being the person we could be in positively contributing to our society. This includes the renewal of physical and relational ways that divide us. I am talking about introducing financial and economic systems that will give us an abundance mentality. We need to encourage social and political interaction that goes beyond individualism, for this is what will renew and preserve Australia as a great nation in the world.
Being the only black African Australian senator is my point of difference. I do not know what your difference is. What we do with our differences, our unique gifts, is our choice. Let us choose wisely.
Finally, let us talk about culture. I was born in the Kikuyu tribe of Kenya. One of the Kikuyu culture's traditions is with regards to marriage. When a man takes a girl for marriage he pays dowry to the girl's family, because the girl will now contribute to the prosperity of the man's family. Her new family prospers from the girl's had work and contribution. Australia, you have taken a girl from Kenya; you may probably need to consider paying dowry. God bless Australia.
I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next sitting day, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No.1 standing in my name for 9 August 2017, proposing the disallowance of the Migration Amendment (Review of the Regulations) Regulation 2016.
I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Export Control Act 1982 to prohibit the export of live animals for slaughter, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
LIVE ANIMAL EXPORT (SLAUGHTER) PROHIBITION BILL 2017
I introduce the Greens' Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill, which would end the horror and suffering that is the live export trade.
Thirty-two years ago a Senate inquiry found evidence of the cruelty of the trade was enough to close it down on animal welfare grounds alone. It recommended that the Government expand the chilled meat trade to eventually replace the live export trade.
The Greens echo those calls. And for many years we have appealed to successive governments to end the trade and provide a just transition to the domestic chilled meat industry. That would be a win-win. Not only would the intense suffering of animals on those ships stop, but it would be a huge boost to Australian jobs and it would grow local supply chains in rural economies.
Yet despite the clear ethical, reputational and financial benefits of ending the live export trade, successive Labor and Coalition governments have continued to support this cruel and abhorrent trade in animal suffering.
Since 2000, 612 639 animals have been reported as dying on crowded live export ships. A vast number of those animals suffered slow deaths from starvation, unable to eat or digest the factory-produced pellets that are used by exporters to substitute a lifetime of grains or pastured food.
Over 25.2 million frightened animals have been crowded into the stinking holds of live export ships in the past seven years alone, blanketed in their own excrement for weeks which fouls any feed or water they might access. Their eyes, throats and lungs are burnt by dense toxic ammonic gases accumulating in those airless holds.
Hundreds of thousands of sheep have died a cruel death from salmonellosis, pneumonia and enteritis with its fevered, cramping and bloodied diarrhoea; in excruciating pain from untreated injuries, infections and illness; or baked alive in searing temperatures.
The profiteering from such abject and systemic cruelty continues, supported by both Labor and the Coalition.
In 2011 we saw clear evidence of animals being systematically tortured in Indonesia. The Federal Government responded with a temporary ban on the trade. But rather than transitioning towards domestic meat processing industry, they put a supply chain assurance scheme in place and lifted the ban. We now know that scheme, the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance scheme or ESCAS, has failed to do what it was supposed to do.
A history of breaches and complete lack of action shows that the Department of Agriculture is incapable of regulating the live export trade through ESCAS. ESCAS was intended to bring certainty to the Australian public, who are immensely concerned about animal welfare on live export ships. But the shocking acts of cruelty have continued unchecked.
In 2015-16 alone, over 17,000 animals died on that harrowing haul to overseas markets where their unspeakable suffering intensified.
In overseas markets under the failed ESCAS regime, Australian animals cower and bellow under bludgeoning sledgehammers; have their throats sawn with blunt knives; tendons sliced, bodies and eyes stabbed; decapitated slowly; dragged and trussed into oven-baking car boots or on top of car roofs like terrified baggage to suffer abuse and horrific deaths.
Australian governments continue to excuse and facilitate extreme brutality by opening up this abhorrent trade to countries where animal abuse and cruelty thrives in government-sanctioned abattoirs.
Recently, the Greens have become concerned that the government is planning to expand the live export trade, at a time when they should be phasing it out. In Senate Estimates this February, the Department of Agriculture confirmed that it has considered ESCAS arrangements for horses, ponies and donkeys for the purposes of slaughter in the event that an application for live export is lodged. Animal welfare groups have seen an exposure draft order that would do such a thing.
I note that the Australian Livestock Exporters Council has stated that it and its members do not support the commencement of any trade in the live export of equines for slaughter. The government needs to definitively ban the export of equines for slaughter as well.
I also wish to note that the Victorian state director of the government's own Export Finance Credit Agency, EFIC, revealed that the agency did not fund the live export trade because it involved "too much cruelty". Those comments were quickly walked back by other EFIC members, but they were very revealing. And thanks to this individual we now know that there are individuals within some arms of government who are willing to give an honest assessment of the risks associated with this inhumane trade. Indeed, a Western Australian magistrate's court has found that a routine live export sheep voyage is unequivocally cruel. Australia's reputation isn't the only risk created by the barbaric live export trade. There is an unambiguous case that Australia can also profit financially from closure of live exports. The value of chilled meat exports is consistently worth seven to eight times more in trade income to Australia than live exports.
Recently, Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce announced his government is putting $8.3 million towards the livestock assurance scheme to improve 'efficiency and competitiveness' in the sector. While the local meat processing industry struggles, and jobs are dwindling, this government is busy funding and promoting this cruel trade. The live export trade remains in direct competition with the domestic meat processing industry which is of greater value to the Australian economy, as is the maintenance and creation of domestic employment along the domestic supply chain. Conversely the closure of domestic processors and the loss of local employment continue to be directly attributable to the growth of the live export trade that has shifted much of the profits and value-adding to overseas markets.
In 2004, a WA Ministerial Taskforce directly blamed the growth in the live export trade as coming at the expense of the domestic meat processing industry with the two sectors competing for the limited supply of animals at the farm gate. This has a major impact on the supply of animals for processing, resulting in the consequent rationalisation of the meat processing sector.
The 2006 Hassall report into the live export industry forecast sheep-meat imports progressively displacing live sheep in Middle East markets, and demand for chilled meat growing. Trade figures show that for over 10 years chilled meat has been worth around 700 to 800 per cent times more in export dollars than the live export trade.
In 2010 a report by SG Heilbron, The Future of the Queensland Beef Industry and the Impact of Live Cattle Exports, found that "The rapid and unchecked growth of live cattle exports is inflicting significant damage on Queensland's beef processing industry" and that "live cattle exports are cannibalising Queensland's beef industry striking at the heart of its value chain".
The 2012 ACIL Tasman economic analysis of the inputs and outputs of live cattle export farms in Australia's top end shows they are not financially sustainable over the long term regardless of the live export market and "are problematic from a whole business perspective."
A 2013 Sapere report looking at the economic impact of phasing out live sheep exports found that "While there may be issues in relation to the availability of suitable labour, there exists sufficient spare physical processing capacity in Western Australia to absorb the entire Australian live sheep export trade as it currently stands."
In December 2015, an industry conference was told the business case for exporting cattle to Indonesia had collapsed, with costs increasing by 4-5 times in the previous 8 years with it costing around 5 times more to produce a kilogram of beef in Indonesia through importing and feeding cattle than it did to import beef in a box.
Indeed a very small percentage of Australian livestock producers sell into the live export trade, which produces a small percentage of the income streams for the large majority of those producers.
The 2014 ABARES Live Export Trade Assessment Report reported that Australian livestock producers receive just 7% of their income from the sale of livestock to the live export industry, with 93% coming from the domestic processing sector. Only 12% of cattle producers in northern Australia rely on live exports as their primary source of income.
Additionally, international market factors beyond Australia's control will always present a constant threat to the sustainability of the live export industry.
There is only one answer.
The Greens' plan to end the barbarism that is the Australian live export trade will benefit of the domestic meat processing industry and create more Australian jobs. It is time for a just transition to address animal cruelty and create economic benefits for rural Australia.
I commend this Bill to the Senate.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to provide for accurate identification of palm oil in goods, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
COMPETITION AND CONSUMER AMENDMENT (TRUTH IN LABELLING – PALM OIL) BILL 2017
When you're shopping for your weekly groceries at the supermarket, and you turn over the packet to read the ingredients of a bag of chips, a block of chocolate or a box of biscuits, you'd expect that "what you see is what you get".
But, believe it or not, that's not always the case.
And what's being hidden from us is potentially impacting our health, and is destroying the environment.
Palm oil is one of the world's leading agricultural commodities and is widely used.
In fact, palm oil can be found in approximately 40 percent of food products at the supermarket, and every year, the average Australian consumes around 10 kilograms of palm oil without even knowing it.
Instead, under the current food labelling laws, manufacturers are able to label palm oil as "vegetable oil" on their packaging.
Well, for starters, the palm is a fruit, not a vegetable.
Secondly, palm oil is high in saturated fat and low in polyunsaturated fat, and, according to the Heart Foundation, biomedical research indicates that the consumption of palm oil increases the risk of heart disease.
Thirdly, in South East Asia alone, the equivalent of 300 soccer fields are deforested every hour for oil palm plantations, and each year more than 1,000 Orang-utans die as a result of land clearing in this region.
There's no question that the current labelling laws are inadequate and are misleading consumers.
Being allowed to disguise palm oil as "vegetable oil" means that Australians aren't able to make an informed choice for themselves and for their family about what they buy at the supermarket because they're not being given all the facts.
In 2011, when I first introduced a Bill to strengthen labelling laws for food containing palm oil, Zoos Victoria, Adelaide Zoo and Auckland Zoo in New Zealand launched the "Don't Palm Us Off" campaign calling for palm oil to be labelled specifically on food packaging.
In the first twelve months of the campaign, over 130,000 people signed on to show their concern about palm oil.
In November 2016, Zoos Victoria re-launched the same campaign, this time attracting 160,000 signatures.
Yet nothing has been done to ensure consumers can easily determine if products they are purchasing contain palm oil.
In 2011 when my previous Bill was debated in the Senate, the following remarks were made during the second reading debate by the Coalition, who were then in Opposition:
"There are many processes. They go on for a long time. As Senator Siewert outlined, this has been proposed for many years. But there has been no action. So the coalition, in supporting this bill, is simply saying consumers have the right to know what is in the food and goods they purchase. We believe this will improve consumers' ability to make informed choices."
The community is backing these reforms.
Some manufacturers are backing these reforms.
It also seems that when the Coalition was in opposition, they were also backing these reforms.
Yet why isn't it compulsory for palm oil to be specifically listed as an ingredient on all packaging?
Put simply, if we are what we eat, we have a right to know what we are eating, and this Bill will give consumers truthful, accurate and clear information about what they are purchasing.
In the United States, the Code of Federal Regulations requires that each individual fat and/or oil ingredient of a food is to be declared by its specific common or usual name.
That is, palm oil is listed as "palm oil".
Similarly, under the provisions of this Bill, regardless of the amount of palm oil used in the product, palm oil must be listed as an ingredient.
It's important to be clear that this Bill is not calling for a boycott of products which contain palm oil - rather, it is designed to enable consumers to know the whole truth about the ingredients that particular product contains so that they can make their own choice prior to purchase.
Just like the inclusion of wheat in a product is labelled to inform consumers with possible allergies, so too should shoppers be told that palm oil is contained in a particular food product.
When I announced my intention to move my Bill back in 2010, I was contacted by dozens of people, outraged that they didn't know and couldn't tell that palm oil was an ingredient in their food.
Unfortunately, not much has changed.
And I share their frustrations.
Consumers should be able to trust that when the list of ingredients is printed on the packaging, all the ingredients are included in that list.
On the issue of conservation - palm oil can be produced sustainably and manufacturers should be encouraged to use certified sustainable palm oil rather than palm oil which is produced as a result of deforestation and loss of wildlife habitat.
In Malaysia and Indonesia, for example, a farmer will chop down all the trees on his land and sell the timber for money. He'll then burn the stumps and plant oil palm which is fast growing and from which he can crush the fruit to produce palm oil and also sell the shells of the palm fruit as food for cattle.
But by cutting down these trees, Orang-utans lose their habitat. In fact, 90 percent of Orangutan habitat has been lost already and it's forecast that at the current rate of deforestation, Orang-utans could be extinct in the wild in less than 10 years.
And on a broader scale, the environmental impact of deforestation is significant. How can we be serious about looking after the environment, when we're not encouraging businesses to farm sustainably?
Palm oil can be produced sustainably. Under criteria set out by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, sustainable palm oil plantations are ones which are established in already cleared land, rather than through deforestation.
It also includes requirements for reforestation along the river-line, bans on pesticides, appropriate labour conditions and wildlife friendly practices.
Manufacturers who use certified sustainable palm oil will be able to list the use of the ingredient as "CS Palm Oil" to indicate its sustainable origins and to show consumers that they are sourcing their ingredient from a sustainable oil palm plantation.
This Bill will encourage food manufacturers to purchase from sustainable palm oil producers and will provide consumers with all the information they need to make their own choice.
Calling palm oil "vegetable oil" is misleading. Not telling Australians that palm oil is one of the ingredients in or used to make a product is unfair.
There have been some significant changes to food labelling laws made in this Parliament and I welcome those changes. However, more can be done and the discontent felt by the community at the lack of action taken on this issue is growing.
Consumers have a right to know and this Bill gives them that right.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) this week is the inaugural Neglected Cancers Awareness Week, which has been initiated by the Garvan Institute to raise awareness of the 186 less common, high-mortality cancers that account for almost 40 per cent of cancer deaths each year,
(ii) rare and less-common cancers affect up to 12 in 100 000 Australians each year,
(iii) over the past 20 years, the survival rates for many rare and less-common cancers, such as cancers of the pancreas, brain and stomach, have barely improved,
(iv) according to Rare Cancers Australia, 42 000 people were diagnosed with a rare or less-common cancer in 2014, and 24 000 Australians died, accounting for half of all cancer deaths that year,
(v) the Garvan Institute is doing impressive work using genomic technologies to understand more about these cancers and find better ways to detect, diagnose and treat them, and
(vi) the Senate is currently conducting an inquiry into funding for research into cancers with low survival rates, which is due to report on 28 November 2017 – by which time approximately 20 000 more Australians will be diagnosed with a rare or less-common cancer; and
(b) calls on the Government to urgently implement mechanisms it has at its disposal to increase and co-ordinate research efforts into rare and less-common cancers, and to increase the pool of funding dedicated to investigating and affordably treating rare cancers.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that the international community came together to recognise the importance of our oceans at the 2017 United Nations Ocean Conference held from 5 to 9 June 2017 in New York,
(ii) that the oceans are under increasing pressure and other nations have started to establish protected areas – Australia cannot afford to leave our oceans exposed given the impacts of climate change, including the severe coral reef bleaching, unprecedented mangrove dieback and significant loss of kelp forests already seen around Australia, and
(iii) the progress globally by other countries to put in place marine national parks, such as:
(A) the Ross Sea Protected Area – declared by 24 nations of the world, including Australia, in 2016 to protect 1 549 000 km2 of the Antarctic high seas in high level IUCN II protection,
(B) the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument – declared by the United States of America (USA) in 2006 and expanded in 2016 to protect 1 508 870 km2 of Hawaiian Islands and atolls in high level IUCN II protection,
(C) the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument – declared by the USA in 2009 and expanded in 2014 to protect 1 270 000 km2 in high level IUCN II protection, and
(D) the Pitcairn Islands Marine Reserve – declared by the United Kingdom in 2015 to protect 834 334km2 around the Pitcairn Islands in the Pacific in high level IUCN II protection,
(iv) the Australian Labor Party's (ALP) 2012 National Network of Commonwealth Marine Reserves – the world's largest network – put Australia at the forefront of ocean conservation globally, with other countries following suit,
(v) the ALP's 2012 National Network of Commonwealth Marine Reserves was based on science and extensive consultation – Labor held more public and stakeholder meetings which were attended by more people, and received more submissions, than the Government's recent review,
(vi) the Government's own review found that extensive science went into the development of the Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network and recognised the scientifically proven benefits of Marine National Park (IUCN 11) zones,
(vii) the Government's own review found that extensive consultation went into the development of the Commonwealth Marine Reserves, stating there was in fact a considerable amount of consultation fatigue' expressed by many stakeholders, and
(viii) that after 15 years of process, regional businesses and industry leaders are seeking certainty with the completion of the National Network of Commonwealth Marine Reserves; and
(b) calls on the Government to honour its domestic and international obligations, and to bring the National Network of Commonwealth Marine Reserves, that was declared in 2012, into operation without further delay, and with no reduction of Marine National Park (IUCN Category 11) zone protection.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government is committed to the implementation of new management arrangements for Australia's marine reserves. Under the statutory consultation process currently underway, the Director of National Parks will soon publicly release her draft plans for a second time. The government has allocated $56 million to implement new management arrangements. We have conducted in excess of 200 public consultations nationally to ensure that conservation, fishing, tourism research and Indigenous use are fairly treated.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that 21 June is the International Day of Yoga, as unanimously declared by the United Nations General Assembly;
(b) recognises that yoga:
(i) is an ancient Indian tradition which embodies unity of mind and body and brings harmony in all walks of life, and
(ii) provides a holistic approach to health and well-being, is practised across Australia and is becoming increasingly popular and mainstream;
(c) further notes:
(i) the significant role yoga has in disease prevention, health promotion and the management of many disorders,
(ii) the importance of individuals and populations making healthier choices and lifestyle patterns to foster good health, and
(iii) that yoga is more than just physical activity, and is about cultivating a balanced attitude in day to day life;
(d) further recognises that, on this day, worldwide, thousands of participants will perform yoga to celebrate the occasion;
(e) encourages all Australians to recognise the International Day of Yoga by attending one of the events held in major cities around the country; and
(f) further encourages the community to engage in yoga on a continuous basis to enjoy the many benefits yoga provides.
Question agreed to.
I move this motion on behalf of Senator Di Natale. I wish to inform the chamber that Senator Collins will also sponsor the motion. I, and on behalf of Senator Di Natale and Senator Collins, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that Muslims in Australia and around the world are about to celebrate the end of the holy month of Ramadan, a spiritual month, where followers of Islam fast and recommit to the values of patience, generosity and altruism;
(b) acknowledges those many Iftar events around the country where many non–Muslim friends and neighbours share a meal together, exchange knowledge and learn more about the cultural and spiritual diversity within Australia; and
(c) recognises Australian Muslims' ongoing and valuable contributions to the community.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Australian Border Force (ABF) commissioner, Mr Roman Quaedvlieg has stated that the detection of imports of building and construction materials that contain asbestos has tripled over the past year,
(ii) the ABF has found 40 cargo shipments with asbestos-containing materials over the past 10 months – three times more than the detections in 2015-16,
(iii) the ABF has imposed only three financial penalties on companies for importing asbestos,
(iv) construction company Yuanda has admitted responsibility for importing asbestos-tainted building materials, which were subsequently used in the construction of Perth Children's Hospital, but has not faced any charges,
(v) CFMEU National Secretary, Mr Dave Noonan, has stated that, as it is impossible for the ABF to inspect every shipment entering the country, and companies that import materials that contain asbestos should be penalised, as such penalties would act as a deterrent against the import and use of the contaminated materials, and
(vi) the CFMEU Construction Division is considering imposing its own ban on building products from certain countries until the Government takes decisive action; and
(b) calls on the Government to take decisive action to ensure that no building materials containing asbestos are used in Australia.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government opposes this motion on the basis that the motion contains a number of incorrect statements of fact and misquotes the Australian Border Force commissioner. The motion misquotes the ABF commissioner when it states that 'the detection of imports of building and construction materials that contain asbestos has tripled over the past year'. This is incorrect. Additionally, the motion states that 'the ABF has imposed only three financial penalties on companies for importing asbestos'. This is also incorrect. Preventing asbestos from crossing Australia's border is a priority for the government, and, through the Australian Border Force, we have significantly increased the efforts to stop goods containing asbestos from being imported into Australia through increased targeting and testing.
Question agreed to.
I move:
(1) That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent this resolution having effect.
(2) That the Voice for Animals (Independent Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2015 be restored to the Notice Paper and consideration of the bill resume at the stage reached in the 44th Parliament.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator Ludlam and Senator Moore, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that in Papua New Guinea:
(i) there are an estimated 46 000 people living with HIV, representing approximately 0.9 per cent of the population,
(ii) HIV is concentrated in geographic areas and among key populations, particularly sex workers and their clients and men who have sex with men,
(iii) in 2017, it is estimated that more than 400 infants will be born with HIV, a situation that is entirely preventable when women have access to HIV treatment,
(iv) in 2017, more than 1 000 people will die from AIDS-related conditions that are preventable with HIV treatment,
(v) an estimated 16 per cent of people with HIV in the National Capital District have resistance to first-line HIV treatment – the highest level in the world, and
(vi) together, these signal grave risks to the successes achieved by the long-term efforts of Papua New Guinea, Australia and other donors, to avoid a catastrophic, generalised HIV epidemic; and
(b) calls on the Government to review its contribution to Papua New Guinea's HIV response, and to develop a plan to mitigate future risks for Papua New Guinea's HIV response and Australia's health security.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Our overseas development assistance in 2017-18 for Papua New Guinea is about $546 million, including about $90 million for health. Combating HIV and other serious health problems remains a priority. The recently approved funding for integrated health programs that include HIV prevention and treatment will continue to support the PNG government to deliver better services using its own systems. We also work with other partners, including government, local organisations, the UN and Global Fund, to ensure HIV services are sustainable. Planning is underway for a new health program that will assist vulnerable groups in Papua New Guinea and focus on strengthening health security.
Question agreed to.
I move:
(1) That the Senate notes that:
(a) Sportradar is a multinational corporation headquartered in Switzerland and:
(i) the company specialises in sport data collection and dissemination,
(ii) the company provides services to sports and state authorities to monitor for match fixing, and
(iii) in 2015, the company signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Australian Federal Police related to sports integrity and intelligence;
(b) Real Time Sportscasts is a subsidiary of Sportradar and:
(i) the company collects data from amateur sporting competitions on behalf of offshore live betting sites,
(ii) the company pays scouts to attend amateur, semi-professional and low-level sports events to collect live data and feed that data back to a global hub in the Philippines that distributes the data to international gambling sites, and
(iii) the company has been collecting information within Australia for this purpose;
(c) the Australian Federal Police have a role in policing match fixing in sports; and
(d) there is a strong public interest in openness and transparency in circumstances where a law enforcement agency enters into an agreement with a company operating in an area relating to the activity being policed.
(2) That there be laid on the table, by the Minister representing the Minister for Justice, by the start of business on 22 June 2017, a copy of the 2015 Memorandum of Understanding between the Australian Federal Police and Sportradar.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
This motion responds to concerns about international gambling sites collecting data from amateur sporting competitions on behalf of the offshore live betting sites. This motion would compel the production of a 2015 memorandum of understanding between the Australian Federal Police and Sportradar designed to reduce barriers to information-sharing on match fixing and related issues. Labor believes it is important to protect the integrity of Australian sport from organised crime. The AFP have said that the release of this MOU would have an adverse effect on investigation and intelligence operations, and for this reason Labor will not be supporting this motion. However, we are open to working with Senator Xenophon or the government on measures to ensure organised crime does not target Australian sport.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I am disappointed that the opposition does not see fit to support this motion. Sportradar is a multinational corporation that specialises in sports data collection and dissemination to deal with issues of match fixing. But it also has a subsidiary, Real Time Sportscast, which sends data scouts around the country to amateur sporting events, including the Tuggeranong women's basketball team, to facilitate betting on those games in other countries. For that reason I thought it was important that this motion be passed so that we can actually see what the AFP has in terms of its agreement with Sportradar and whether the AFP is aware of Real Time Sportscast and its role in facilitating online gambling in other countries on our amateur sports.
Question negatived.
On behalf of Senator Di Natale I move:
That the Senate affirms that the corrupting influence of donations on public policy does not magically stop at the borders and uncapped domestic donations pervert our democracy in the exact same way as foreign donations do.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Following the 2016 election the Special Minister of State referred a range if issues to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for inquiry. The committee has released two interim reports, one on the authorisation of voter communication and another on foreign donations. The government is responding in a timely manner to both. Legislation is currently before the parliament to increase the transparency of voter communication, and legislation to ban foreign donations will be introduced later this year. The inquiry's wide-ranging terms of reference included donations to political parties and other political entities, and the government looks forward to receiving the committee's report.
Question negatived.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) it has been ten years since the roll-out of the Northern Territory Intervention and income management, and
(ii) the Intervention was rolled out without consultation with Aboriginal communities, Aboriginal organisations or the authors of the report, Little Children Are Sacred;
(b) acknowledges:
(i) in September 2014, the Final Evaluation report, Evaluating New Income Management in the Northern Territory, found that it did not meet its objectives,
(ii) the hurt, trauma and suffering of many people in the Northern Territory, as a result of the policies of the Intervention, and
(iii) that the number of Aboriginal children going into out-of-home care has significantly increased since the Intervention started and that disadvantage continues in the Northern Territory; and
(c) calls on the Government to:
(i) discontinue income management in the Northern Territory,
(ii) support self-determination in Aboriginal communities,
(iii) commit to ensuring that Government policy is led by local Aboriginal communities, and
(iv) fund the recommendations from the Redfern Statement.
Question negatived.
I ask that general business notice of motion 377 standing in my name and in the names of Senators Moore and Xenophon for today relating to the maritime boundary between Australia and Timor-Leste be taken as a formal motion.
Leave not granted.
In lieu of seeking a suspension, I seek leave to make a brief statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I thank the chamber. Again—the second time in two days—the government is suppressing a legitimate foreign policy motion. We all know in here that good-faith negotiations with Timor-Leste in pursuit of a fair and permanent maritime boundary are surely a legal and ethical imperative for any Australian government. Australia's history with Timor-Leste is a story of goodwill squandered and of treating a friend with contempt. We wiretapped their cabinet rooms during sensitive commercial negotiations under the guide of an AusAID project and then sent ASIO after those Australians who tried to call out this injustice. We have acted like a complete bully in our maritime boundary dispute and at all times our conduct has been driven by self-interest rather than by trying to secure a fair outcome for our neighbours. The ALP, the Nick Xenophon Team and the Australian Greens are asking the government for nothing more than to put ethics and basic human decency ahead of oil revenues in the interests of the government's corporate handlers.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I thank the chamber. In line with the government's longstanding view, motions that cannot be debated or amended should not deal with complex foreign policy matters. Australia and Timor-Leste are currently working to reach an enduring boundary agreement through the Conciliation Commission process in a constructive and fair manner. These discussions are confidential. Australia's position is fully consistent with international law, which reflects our support for the international rules based order and our commitment to resolving disputes peacefully.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Siewert, move:
That the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension)
Amendment Determination 2017, made under the Social Security Act 1991, be disallowed [F2017L00659].
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Yesterday I met with the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, who took me to the issues pertaining to this disallowance. They argued strongly that we should oppose this proposition, and that we should seek disallowance. They argued that many people hold the view that drug and alcohol addiction is self-inflicted and easy to overcome, but, as doctors, they knew that the reality was far more complex. They argued that, if this passed the parliament, the measure would hurt 450 people every year and it would hurt their families. It would not encourage people with drug and alcohol problems to seek the support or treatment they need from drug and alcohol treatment services. Society of Saint Vincent de Paul also opposed this proposition.
I seek leave to also make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government has proposed that from 1 July 2017 people will no longer be able to qualify for a disability support pension on the basis of substance abuse alone. DSP claimants who indicate they have a disability related to substance abuse will now also be required to undergo treatment for their abuse before any associated functional impairments can be considered to be fully diagnosed, treated, stabilised and assessed under the remaining DSP impairment tables. Once table 6 is removed, permanent impairments caused by substance abuse can be assessed under the remaining tables. However, they would be functionally based rather than based on diagnosis alone. For example, a permanent brain injury acquired from long-term drug use can be assessed under table 7, brain function. Our changes ensure that people with drug abuse issues are directed to the help they need.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
This is the government once again launching an attack on the most vulnerable members of our community. They are showing us all how little they actually understand about substance addictions and its impact on the community. There are further showing us that they do not actually care about the devastating impacts of addiction and the people who experience it. They simply want to punish those who are suffering from addiction rather than helping them.
These impairment tables were a result of a review conducted in 2011. The government is claiming that that report is the justification for this measure. However, the government is selectively reading that report and has failed to understand the reasons for including table 6, functioning related to alcohol, drug and substance use. The functional impacts of substance addictions are unique and cannot be appropriately recognised under the other impairment tables. Experts know that the addiction encompasses both psychological and physiological characteristics and psychological impacts, and must be treated as such.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Nick Xenophon team will be supporting this motion, because, if the measure proceeds, it will mean vulnerable people who are already in a desperate situation will be pushed into poverty, homelessness and potentially resorting to crime. The current impairment tables were introduced in 2012 after a clinician-led comprehensive review. It was guided by an advisory committee consisting of medical allied health and rehabilitation experts, representatives of people with a disability, mental health advocates and relevant government agencies. There was also a testing period before the table was introduced. The change proposed by this instrument has not been determined with any of the same rigour on the basis of expert medical advice. This is why the Nick Xenophon Team cannot allow the measure to proceed. Effective policy reform in this area requires engagement and co-design with the addiction medicine sector to ensure the proposals meet policy objectives. The Nick Xenophon Team would welcome the opportunity to work with the government to address this issue further.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Cameron, business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, be agreed to.
I seek leave to withdraw the matter of public importance in my name for today.
There being no objection, the matter of public importance proposed for today is withdrawn.
) ( ): On behalf of the chair of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into the 'Operation, effectiveness and consequences of public governance, performance and accountability: location of corporate Commonwealth entities'—order of 2016.
On behalf of Senator Williams, I present delegated legislation monitor No.7 of 2017 of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.
Ordered that the report be printed.
(—) (): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the 6th Report of 2017: Human rights scrutiny report.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I seek leave to have the tabling statement incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement read as follows—
I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' Human Rights Scrutiny Report 6 of 2017.
In accordance with the committee's legislative mandate under section 7(a) of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 the committee examines the compatibility of recent bills and legislative instruments with Australia's obligations under international human rights law.
A key purpose of the scrutiny report is to provide parliament with credible analysis about the human rights implications of legislation. The report is therefore a technical examination and does not assess the broader merits or policy objectives of particular measures.
The committee receives legal advice in relation to the human rights compatibility of legislation. It is served by an external legal adviser to the committee and secretariat staff.
Committee members performing a scrutiny function are not, and have never been, bound by the contents or conclusions of scrutiny committee reports. Like all parliamentarians, committee members are free to engage in debates over the policy merits of legislation according to the dictates of party, conscience, belief or outlook. Scrutiny committee members may, and often do, have different views in relation to the policy merits of legislation.
The majority of new bills considered in this report – eight – were assessed as promoting human rights, permissibly limiting human rights or not engaging human rights. These eight bills are therefore listed as raising no human rights concerns.
The committee is also seeking further information from legislation proponents in relation to two bills. The committee requests additional information where a statement of compatibility has not adequately addressed human rights matters. These matters are outlined in chapter one of the committee's report.
One key theme that has emerged in this report relates to the human rights implications of coercive evidence gathering powers that are not subject to the privilege against self-incrimination.
The committee has also concluded its examination of three bills following correspondence with the relevant minister. The committee's comments for concluding matters are outlined in chapter two of the committee's report.
I encourage my fellow senators and others to examine the report to enhance their understanding of the committee's work.
With these comments, I commend the committee's Report 6 of 2017 to the Senate.
On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit, I present report No. 462: Commonwealth infrastructure spending: inquiry based on the Auditor-General reports 14 of 2015-16 and 38 of 2016-17 as well as executive minutes on various reports and I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to incorporate the tabling statement in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement read as follows—
The statement was unavailable at the time of publishing.
On behalf of Senator Polly, I present scrutiny digest No.7 of 2017 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I present three government responses to committee reports as listed on today's Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The documents read as follows—
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services
Report on the 2012-13 annual reports of bodies established under the ASIC Act
Government Response
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends CALDB distinguish in subsequent annual reports whether matters were referred by ASIC or APRA.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends CALDB explicitly indicate in subsequent annual reports whether any decisions were the subject of either judicial or AAT review during the year.
The committee recommends that CALDB examine Parliamentary committee reports and include appropriate discussion in the section on external scrutiny of the CALDB annual reports.
Recommendation 4
The committee recommends that the Takeovers Panel examine relevant Parliamentary committee reports and include appropriate discussion about the content of committee reports in the Panel's future annual reports.
Recommendation 5
The committee recommends that the Financial Reporting Council implement regular surveys of the financial literacy of directors and publish the results.
Recommendation 6
The committee recommends that the AUASB examine relevant Parliamentary committee reports and include appropriate discussion in the section on external scrutiny of the AUASB annual reports.
Recommendation 7
The committee recommends that the AASB examine Parliamentary committee reports and include appropriate discussion in the section on external scrutiny of the AASB annual reports.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services
Statutory Oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Takeovers Panel and the Corporations Legislation
Government Response
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that the compliance index of ASIC annual reports clearly set out the source of all mandatory and statutory requirements, including section 136 of the ASIC Act.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that in future annual reports, ASIC include performance data over longer periods to allow trends in performance to be analysed.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that the government undertake a review of penalties available to ASIC and that the review include a broadly based consultation process.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services
Inquiry into the Personal Liability for Corporate Fault Reform Bill 2012
Government Response
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that the Personal Liability for Corporate Fault Reform Bill 2012 be passed.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that the Department of Treasury monitor the application of the reverse onus of proof for company directors and corporate officers. The committee recommends that Treasury report its findings to the Minister 12 months after the bill has been passed, and report any matters of concern to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services.
This afternoon, I present the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee on the Bell Group litigation, together with the documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Today, as the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, I have tabled a report into the nature and scope of any agreement reached by the Commonwealth and the Western Australian governments in relation to the distribution of the proceeds of the liquidation of and litigation concerning the Bell group of companies. In 2015, we found ourselves in a very invidious position, with the former Western Australian Liberal government passing the Bell Group Companies (Finalisation of Matters and Distribution of Proceeds) Act, which created a statutory authority to determine the distribution of some $1.7 billion that was owed to creditors, with a large sum being owed to the Australian Taxation Office. The legislation prioritised the WA government's claims for Bell Group liquidation funds before the claims of other creditors, including debts to the Commonwealth. This is no way to solve Western Australia's GST imbalance, particularly as it was proved to be unconstitutional.
At the time, the Western Australian Labor opposition raised concerns about the constitutionality of the Bell act and were assured by the former government, including then Treasurer of Western Australia and now opposition leader, Dr Mike Nahan, that the then government had struck a deal with the Liberal Commonwealth government, who had, according to them, undertaken not to intervene in any proceedings challenging the constitutionality of this act. With the Commonwealth having such a large amount of revenue at stake in the settlement of the Bell Group matter—at least several hundred million dollars—any consideration of making a deal with Western Australia to forego this revenue would be a serious matter and a matter of important national interest. It should be of great concern to us in this place and to the Australian people. It should be of great concern to this place if one of this country's most senior ministers, indeed the most senior law officer in the land, was planning to issue a direction which could prevent the Commonwealth from recovering these funds owed to it.
Throughout the course of this inquiry, the committee obtained information which indicated that the Attorney-General was indeed considering issuing a direction to the ATO. The ATO gave evidence to the committee that they heard rumours that the Attorney-General was considering issuing a direction which would prevent them from intervening in the High Court challenge to the Bell act. The committee was advised that the direction being contemplated was under the Judiciary Act and that it was either the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General's Department or the Attorney-General's office who were considering issuing this direction. As it turns out, the ATO were so concerned they sought permission from the Attorney-General's Department to seek advice from the Solicitor-General concerning the ATO's options should the ATO issue such a direction. Indeed, the committee believes it is fair to infer, from the proximity of the discussions about the intervention in the Bell Group litigation, that a previous direction issued by the Attorney-General was a consequence of the ATO's intervention in the Bell Group litigation. That matter has indeed been a matter of previous inquiry and debate in this chamber—the Solicitor-General's provision of assistance to the Australian Taxation Office and the Solicitor-General's strong view that the Attorney-General ought to intervene.
It also became clear to us throughout this inquiry that there were some in the government who did not want us to find out this important information. We faced, in this inquiry, a great many challenges—hitting roadblocks at every step. Government members have acted with disregard for the processes of the Senate throughout the conduct of this inquiry. The initial hearings were entirely run by opposition and crossbench senators, with the government withdrawing the capacity for us to contribute to quorums. When they did appear, they deliberately tried to interfere with the conduct of the inquiry by interjecting and attempting to stop the committee from asking questions. It is clear that all attempts have been made by the government to prevent the Senate from holding the Attorney-General to account on this issue. As was noted in the interim report, a significant number of questions taken on notice were delivered late, were often incomplete and contained insubstantial responses. The government still, despite motions and orders for production of documents to the Senate, refuses to provide documents requested by the committee.
The Attorney-General's has also made several claims of public interest immunity, and the report recommends that the Senate reject the assertions of the Attorney-General, which claim legal and professional privilege are, in and of themselves, a valid justification to refuse to provide this information. This has never been an accepted ground for the claim of public interest immunity, and it should be rejected. The report, indeed, recommends that the Senate condemn the Attorney-General's wilful defiance of these Senate standards. It is completely unacceptable that the Leader of the Government in this place should show disregard for us in this way. It is a complete breach of duty.
Perhaps most importantly, the report recommends that the Senate reminds senators of the need to always act in the best interests of the Australian people and to do so in a transparent manner, and that the Attorney-General should allow independent, statutory authorities to act without interference from the government. It should not be acceptable to us in this place that the Australian government—that our Attorney-General, Senator Brandis—would even consider acting outside the interests of the Commonwealth and the Australian people. It should not be acceptable to us, in this place, that the Australian government has shown such a complete disregard for the processes of the parliament and our committees, and made it difficult for the committee to inquire into such a serious matter. I commend the report to the Senate.
I regret to say that there is barely a skerrick of truth in what you have just heard from the chairman of this committee, and I have to say that even speaking on this report—if I could call it that—is an embarrassment to me. The report itself—the whole inquiry—is an embarrassment to the Senate. It diminishes the Senate that taxpayer's money has been spent in pursuing this political fascination that the Labor Party have with the Attorney-General. There have been a series of inquiries, instituted by this committee, solely for the purpose of trying to get a 'gotcha moment' on the Attorney-General. We went through that Solicitor-General inquiry—a complete and abject waste of money. Not one skerrick of evidence that the Attorney-General had done anything wrong came forward in that report. Similarly, with this inquiry, not a skerrick of evidence has come forward that suggests any wrongdoing by the Commonwealth government—the federal government—or, I suspect, the then Western Australian government. Other speakers will go into the background of the Bell issue. Suffice it for me to say that it all arose from corruption in the Labor government in Western Australia aeons ago, in the time of—what was the Premier's name?
Burke.
Premier Burke. There was WA Inc., and all the corruption, all the lies, all the jailings of Labor politicians that followed that, and this happened 20 or so years ago. It has been the most complex, time-consuming and expensive inquiry into how to deal with the wind-up of the Bell Group. There was a lot of money at stake, but it is has been going now for 20 years, Senator Back, I think—
Longer.
longer than 20 years—trying to work out how to wind up the Bell Group. The Western Australian government came up with a solution to try and save money, to try and pay the Western Australian government something out of the fiasco, and they passed an act of parliament which was taken to the High Court and proved to be unconstitutional. That is just a simple background; others will go into it in more detail.
This Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee inquiry was set up by the Labor and Green's majority in this chamber, and the terms of reference were all about allegations that the Attorney or the Commonwealth, or someone, had done something wrong. They had a number of exhaustive hearings—and I say 'they' because, although Senator Pratt said coalition senators prevented the witnesses proceeding by interjecting, I can tell you, Mr Acting Deputy President Ketter, coalition senators rarely attended the hearings. So they were just hearings done by the Greens political party and the Labor Party, without any government senator even there.
I suspect very few Australians understand the complexity of this—or they do not really care. They could not follow it, even if they read the majority committee report. But, if anyone were interested, they should have a look at the dissenting report, which is the accurate account of this inquiry and the abject waste of money and Senate resources that followed from this inquiry achieving absolutely nothing.
Have a look at the report. The recommendations are ludicrous. Two of the recommendations are about lecturing fellow senators on how they should behave. How ridiculous that a group of three Labor senators and one Greens senator should presume to lecture other senators on how they should discharge their duties—absolutely ridiculous. There are two other recommendations which seem to accuse the Attorney-General of thinking about something. It is absolutely mind blowing that this could be submitted as the report of a serious Senate committee inquiry. I will try and turn them up, because they are absolutely laughable—the paucity of these recommendations in the majority committee report.
Senator Pratt said the ATO felt that they were being bullied into doing something, or the Attorney-General felt that he was under some pressure. Mr Acting Deputy President Ketter, if you look at the dissenting report, you will see where we have quoted from the evidence of Second Commissioner Mills. He says:
Whether or not people were having discussions outside of us, no-one ever sought to inappropriately influence the course of action that we—
that is the ATO—
had, continued and did.
That should have been the end of it. There, from the Taxation Office themselves, is a comment saying, 'Nobody tried to influence us; don't worry about it.'
Similarly, there was this ridiculous suggestion in the terms of reference about a direction to the Solicitor-General. Again, it is very clear that the evidence of Mr Anderson and another officer of the Attorney-General's department, in the clearest possible words, is that there is nothing in this; it did not happen. One would have thought that any reasonable committee, having those two bits of evidence, would have said, 'Okay, we've made a mistake; let's call it off.' But, no, this committee continued to waste Senate resources—taxpayers' money—in proceeding with this, mainly amongst themselves. As I say, there were very few occasions when government senators were there.
But then they came up with a series of recommendations that are just ludicrous. They accused the Attorney-General of thinking about something. I am not even sure that that is proved, but that is the extent of the report: the Senate should note that the Attorney-General thought about something. Gee whiz, that is going to take the governance of our country and the policy issues of this parliament a long way forward! This inquiry is a demonstration of why these sorts of references bring the Senate into disrepute. They are clearly not inquiries with any purpose apart from trying to get that 'gotcha' moment against the Attorney-General. Mr Dreyfus, the shadow Attorney-General, and his colleagues in this chamber are determined to try, in some way, to get some adverse finding against the Attorney-General, but all this inquiry has done is to completely exonerate the Attorney-General—not that he needed exonerating, I might say. If you have a look at the recommendation, I challenge anyone here to tell me a committee recommendation that has ever been less relevant, less important, less substantial or less able to justify the huge resource of the Senate and senators' time than this witch-hunt, which went absolutely nowhere.
Don't take the evidence of the Attorney-General if you do not want to, although it is clear, under his severe cross-examination both here and in estimates, that never once was anything suggested that was improper. But take the advice of independent public servants, including the Australia Taxation Office, who more or less said: 'This inquiry is a waste of time; it never happened.' One would have thought it would end there. But just have a look; I challenge anyone. Have a look at the recommendations, and, if you can show me a committee that has brought forward, in the 27 years that I have been here, a set of recommendations that are less substantial and less relevant to anything that happens in the governance of our country or any policy issue then I would be amazed. I ask anyone to show me recommendations that are less substantial. Have a look at them. Have a good laugh at them. But lament that we are wasting senators' time and the Senate's money— (Time expired)
It is very interesting listening to Senator Macdonald's contribution to this important report, because, on the one hand, he protests that this inquiry was a complete waste of time and delivered no evidence worth listening to, but, on the other hand, he likes to point out that he barely participated in the inquiry. I suppose that just reflects the level of contempt that he is increasingly showing for the committees of the Senate and the important work that they do.
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
He is sitting over there interjecting right now, despite the fact that I listened in complete silence to his contribution. Again, it just reflects the disruptive and disrespectful attitude that he has to committees. There is no better example than the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which he chairs, which has become a complete farce under his leadership. There is not one hearing of that committee that Senator Macdonald can chair these days without it descending into uproar in reaction to the way that he conducts himself in that committee as the chair. It is no wonder that so many senators on his own side of the chamber are embarrassed by his behaviour. He really should have a good, hard look at how he approaches these committees. He wants to be regarded as the Father of the Senate, a position of respect, and yet he behaves in a more childish manner than any other senator in this entire chamber. He has lost the respect of every single senator in this chamber.
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
He continues to interject now. He really needs to have, as I say, a good, hard look at his behaviour. If he wants to get the respect that someone who is the Father of the Senate gets—
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
There he goes interjecting again, because he is incapable of controlling himself. If he wants to have the respect that one would think that the Father of the Senate—or the Mother of the Senate, should there ever be a female in that position—would hold then he will need to radically change his behaviour and the way that he treats witnesses and other senators going forward.
Government senators interjecting—
We will miss you, Senator Back, unlike Senator Macdonald.
That's because I'm not going anywhere.
That is not what your LNP colleagues in Queensland say, but we will wait and see what happens there.
I will move on to the substance of this report. As Senator Pratt has already outlined, the origins of this inquiry were some very concerning reports about a deal that was clearly done between the Commonwealth government and their Western Australian counterparts when former Treasurer Joe Hockey was still in that chair. It was very clear from the evidence that was revealed at this inquiry that a deal was done which would have put the Commonwealth taxpayer, the hardworking men and women of Australia, below a range of other creditors, including the WA government, in the distribution of proceeds from the long-running Bell litigation. Letters were provided to the inquiry. They were letters between former Treasurer Hockey and his Western Australia counterpart which clearly demonstrated the existence of a deal which would have ripped off the Commonwealth taxpayer by several hundred million dollars. Again, further evidence was provided in the form of Hansard transcripts from the Western Australian parliament which showed that the Western Australian government had a very clear understanding that they had a deal with the federal government.
The reason this is so serious is that the Commonwealth taxpayer obviously would normally take a very high position in the distribution of any proceeds from a liquidation and would quite rightly get their money back. The highly questionable nature of the deal that was struck between the two Liberal governments was reflected in the submissions from the Solicitor-General when he was eventually given permission to intervene on behalf of the federal government in the High Court litigation where the Solicitor-General made very clear that anyone who was behind the Western Australian legislation which sought to elevate themselves above the Commonwealth taxpayer either knew nothing about tax law at all or had—I think this was the phrase—blithe disregard for it.
This was a shady deal. We will never know exactly why it was done. Those of us in other states suspect that it was probably to settle the long-running argument between the federal government and Western Australia about the GST distribution.
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
Senator Macdonald finds that funny. I am interested that a senator from Queensland is laughing at the idea of a deal between another state government and his own Commonwealth government to send it more GST money—but there you go. We will never know the reason for this deal, but the deal was done. There is no doubt about that.
A lot of this inquiry went to the conduct of the Attorney-General, both in his handling of this matter and his handling of the inquiry. Senator Brandis has stated that he was very reluctant to intervene personally as Attorney-General despite having a very strong case which was ultimately vindicated in the High Court. I cannot remember the exact phrase that he used, but he was persuaded ultimately that he did need to intervene as a result of very strong advice from the Solicitor-General. You really would think that an Attorney-General would understand that one of his or her main roles is to uphold Commonwealth law, but unfortunately in Senator Brandis we have an Attorney-General who needs to be persuaded through strong advice that he should actually do his job and uphold Commonwealth law and protect the Commonwealth taxpayer. Unfortunately that is the kind of Attorney-General we have in Senator Brandis.
Not only was Senator Brandis very unwilling to intervene personally as Attorney-General, but evidence emerged over the course of this inquiry that he did go to lengths to attempt to stop the Australian tax office itself from intervening in this litigation. We took evidence over the course of this inquiry from very senior tax office officials who said that they were aware of bureaucratic whispers and rumours through the Commonwealth—
Government senators interjecting—
Again, we have government senators laughing about the fact that senior tax office officials were talking about their own government wanting to do a deal which would have deprived the Commonwealth of tax dollars. I do not think it is a laughing matter—I think it is important that Commonwealth ministers uphold the law and put the Commonwealth taxpayer first. It is unfortunate that we have some government senators, particularly Senator Macdonald, who think that this is a joke.
Tax office officials were conscious of discussions that were going on within the federal Public Service about the Attorney-General attempting to spike this litigation. It was interesting that finally, after a long-running battle with ministers and the tax office, only yesterday we finally obtained a copy of the email that was sent by the tax office to the Attorney-General's Department seeking permission from the Attorney-General's Department to get legal advice from the Solicitor-General to counter this concern that the Attorney-General was preparing to prevent them from intervening in this litigation. You have to wonder what was going on inside the Attorney-General's office and what directions they were giving to their department that would lead some of the most senior officials in the Australian Taxation Office to send an email to the Attorney-General's Department seeking permission to get advice from the Solicitor-General of this country to stop the Attorney-General from breaking the law. That is the kind of contempt that the Australian Attorney-General has for the law that he is supposed to uphold, and incredible efforts had to be undertaken by senior public servants, including the former Solicitor-General, to prevent him from breaking the law and trying to prevent the Australian Taxation Office from upholding the law. The inquiry was frustrated by the activities of the Attorney-General in refusing to answer questions on notice, claiming public immunity in circumstances far beyond what that provision intended.
The other infamous thing that arose in the course of this inquiry was the evidence that the Attorney-General had misled this chamber. Many of us might remember the Attorney-General's first statement on this matter to the Senate indicated that his first involvement in this case I think was on 4 March, at least in early March, 2016. Of course that was proven to be untrue as well by comments from the Western Australian Attorney-General from his own party which indicated that they had actually had a conversation about this sometime before. So yet again we have another situation where Senator Brandis misleads this Senate. He has contempt for the law, he clearly has contempt for the role, and the sooner he packs his bags and gets off to London the better we will be. This is a terrible episode in Australian public policy. It has left the Attorney-General's standing further diminished, and unfortunately in Senator Macdonald we have an outrageous chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. He does not want to do his job properly, he comes in and bullies people and now he just sits back thinking the whole thing is a joke. I commend the recommendations of this report.
The fact that Senator Watt spent a third of his time attacking Senator Macdonald is simply an indication that he knew very well he had nothing to say. This whole situation has been based around rumour and innuendo. Before Senator Dastyari goes, I have always thought innuendo was an Italian suppository, and that is where this richly deserves to be. Let us remember what the Bell issue was all about. Bell was about the lowest form of rotten corruption visited upon the state Western Australia by the then Labor Burke government. It was a government that was rotten to the core. It was a government that tried to jump into bed totally as a result of incompetence. Senator Gallagher raised the point about corruption between the state and the federal government. I pointed out in this place that there was such corruption—it involved the government of Mr Hawke and was occasioned by a meeting in Mr Burke's office between Mr Hawke, Mr Burke, Mr Alan Bond, Mr Laurie Connell and others. What were they trying to do? In receipt of the substance of money to the Western Australian Labor Party, they were trying to influence Mr Hawke into not charging royalties on gold in this country.
The Bell situation was probably the worst corporate case in Australia's history, and it was all to do with the corruption of the Burke Labor government. Why this federal opposition wants to raise all this is absolutely and utterly beyond me. We all know that the correspondence from the Western Australian government to the federal government, following legislation that was unanimously passed in WA, indicated that the first creditor should be the federal government of Australia—despite the fact that the federal government and other creditors put not one penny into the billions of dollars of litigation, all of which was funded by the Western Australian taxpayer. But the correspondence from the Western Australian government of the time to the Treasurer of Australia was to say that the first creditor would be the Australian government. At no time did Attorney-General Brandis ever involve himself in the process that found its way to the High Court of Australia. For Senator Watt to say so belies his credibility as a lawyer rather than as a senator. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Chair of the Community Affairs References Committee, I present the report on the better management of the social welfare system initiative, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and the documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
This is of course the report of the inquiry into what is commonly known as the Centrelink robo-debt debacle. Officially, it is called the Online Compliance Intervention program. This report makes 21 recommendations, which I will come to in a minute. But I want to start with a quote from Ms Kym Goodes, who is the chief executive of the Tasmanian Council of Social Service. She says:
The question that we ask the committee to consider in its deliberations is: where is good government, good decision- making and leadership when a system is failing? Where is the leadership that is bold enough to say: 'We got this wrong. We will pull it back. We will rework it. We will review it. We will talk to the stakeholders, who know best, to try and get it right.' Where is good government in understanding and taking seriously its duty of care to its citizens to protect the most vulnerable and not cause vulnerability or harm to its own citizens?
That is an extremely good question. We have heard many experiences of people who have suffered under this process. Our conclusions and recommendations find that there is a key flaw of this program—it filtered through the whole process and continues to—and that is a fundamental lack of procedural fairness. That is evident in the fact that there was a lack of consultation in this program. They did not consult the stakeholders and the very people who will be affected and were subsequently affected. They did not do a proper testing phase. They did not do a risk assessment of the impact. Why did they not think that sending out hundreds and thousands of incorrect letters would not have an impact on some of the most vulnerable members of our community. They did not even consider that they should not send all those thousands of debts to debt collectors when the letters came back addressed to the wrong address. They did not bother to find out the correct addresses—and 6,600 debts went to the debt collectors because of that. There was a lack of fundamental fairness and procedural fairness in the fact that they automatically charged a 10 per cent recovery fee. The program goes back six years, but on the portal it says that you are to keep your documentation for at least six months. That, when it was pointed out, was very quickly taken off the portal.
The committee's first recommendation is that the Online Compliance Intervention program should be put on hold until all procedural fairness flaws are addressed and the other recommendations of this report are implemented. If these issues are addressed, the OCI should only be continued in its new form after the new one-touch payroll system is implemented in 2018—in other words, those debts are able to be checked through the online payment system, so they have those employment details.
The lack of procedural fairness, of course, continued in the averaging of people's incomes. The government knew full well, when it was sending out these letters, that many of them were in error because they did not have from the ATO the employment details and periods for people. So what do they do? They average it and take out human oversight. This is absolutely critical—human oversight was taken out.
The committee strongly recommends that the rollout of a redesigned system must include a robust risk assessment process which includes consultation with expert stakeholders. We further recommend that all people who have had a debt amount determined through the use of income averaging should have their debt amounts reassessed immediately by a team of departmental officers with specialist knowledge of the OCI program using accurate income data sourced from employers. This reassessment must include the full range of unpaid, partially paid and fully paid debts incurred by the current income payment recipients and those debts outsourced to debt collection agencies.
There were so many flaws in this program that I cannot go through them all in the time I have available. I would like to read out a quote from somebody who gave us evidence. I should say that there were a number of people who were put off giving evidence to us because of the government releasing their personal details. We had quotes from people—for example, from the Victorian Council of Social Service, who said they were going to have a person come but they were not even allowed to mention this person's case because they were so scared that they may get retribution from the government, such as the release of personal details. We make recommendations about that. The government should not be releasing people's personal details. I would like to quote somebody who spoke to us during the inquiry and said:
That figure of my debt of $3,154.11 was remarkably precise, but if there was any kind of detailed computation behind it I have never seen it. I have even pulled an FOI on my case and I cannot make head or tail of how that figure was arrived at. They came up with this figure, but they provided no accounting for it and they provided no explanation, initially, as to how it arose. They just said, 'Here's your debt; pay it or prove you don't owe it.'
Some people only found out about their debt when their income support payment started getting garnished for repayments. Then they found out that they supposedly had a debt. Some people started paying the debt because they rather naively believed that the government must have it right. So they did not question the debts—they just started paying them. We do not know how many of those people out there, but I urge anybody who is caught up with this system to ask for a reassessment. That was another one of the problems: people did not know their rights. They did not know that they could ask for a reassessment and more formal review and go through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
People spoke of their intense emotional distress—how they felt like they were being called frauds and cheats. I cannot tell you how much that distressed people. Again, there was such a lack of procedural fairness that has resulted in these peoples feeling this deep emotional stress and trauma. You are talking about very vulnerable Australians. This made their situations worse. One witness said that it has actually put him off trying to find work because he is so scared that he is going to make another mistake and be put through the trauma of having to prove that he does not owe a debt.
As I said, there are 21 recommendations. Some of those, as I said, relate to the recommendation that this should be put on hold, looking at reassessment of the debts, looking at the fact that the government should be practising best practice. They certainly did not do that through this process.
Before I conclude, I want to thank all the witnesses. I know that going through it again deeply affected many of the witnesses who appeared before us. I want to thank them for their evidence. I want to thank all those people who put in submissions; we received many. And we received many short emails. I want to say to those people: 'We did note them. We understand your distress and we hope this report helps deal with this issue.'
I want to thank our committee secretariat who once again went above and beyond. Honestly, they have pulled some really late nights—and weekend work. They have really done a sterling job. I cannot thank them enough. I would also like to thank my colleagues for the work and effort they have put in, in going to all the hearings. It was deeply moving to hear people's evidence. I think the whole of our committee would agree with that. I commend this report to the Senate and I urge the government to implement the recommendations—21 of them. Please get on with it: tomorrow.
I accept that we are limited for time so I will try and confine my remarks so other senators are able to make a contribution also. Picking up where Senator Siewert left off, I just want to comment on the conduct of the hearings, starting with the submitters and witnesses. I do thank all those Australians, individuals and organisations, that came forward to provide evidence to this committee.
A lot of people—as mentioned by Senator Siewert, the chair of the inquiry, and as I am sure other senators will mention—experienced a degree of confusion and stress over experiences they had. I am not sure if committees have done this previously, but we were able to offer a degree of anonymity to submitters and people who wanted to come to closed sessions of the committee. People were able to speak freely about their problems. So to my colleagues, particularly Senator Siewert and Senator Watt, thank you very much for your work on this—and the secretariat and all the submitters as well.
In terms of the starting point on this issue, I do not think anyone comes to this issue thinking that everything is done perfectly and everything is done right. One has to acknowledge where things go wrong. That is why we had this Senate inquiry. I have been very clear since—as Senator Siewert leaves I again I commend her on her work here. My personal position on this is that, as a representative of the Tasmanian community, I was contacted by many people with issues they experienced. So that was quite insightful. You have to acknowledge the issue. You cannot ignore it. You cannot pretend nothing is wrong. On that point, it is important to note the changes that were made before the inquiry commenced. Changes were implemented by the minister and the Department of Human Services. Additionally, recommendations were made by the Ombudsman and all of the recommendations have been accepted by the department. Implementation is underway, if not completed, on those recommendations. There are also ongoing areas of reform as well.
I want to briefly touch on my dissenting report, which is co-signed by Senator Reynolds, the other coalition senator. It is not a case of saying, 'No, there's nothing wrong and there are no lessons to be learnt here'. It is a case of putting our views on the record around the areas of improvement that are required. They go to three areas: improving data matching and case selection; enhancing communications and interactions with recipients, including simplification of language in letters; and improving debt management processes. All of these things go to the complex nature of our welfare system in this country, and how recipients in trying to interact with this complex system can find it difficult.
Senator Siewert touched on the point that Australians who receive correspondence from the government often think: 'It's from the government; it must be right.' That is something we have to take into account. There are a number of recommendations we make ourselves as coalition senators about areas for improvement with regard to data and analysis of that data; about how to interact with recipients; how to make this a seamless and straightforward process as much as possible; and how to make it easy in terms of an entry point and providing data to assist recipients of any support on the way through the process.
All of those things being there, I would encourage people to read the report but also to read the dissenting report, because it is important, I think, to read as well the dissenting report, which I think is a very measured document. It is not a case of pretending there is nothing wrong and there are no lessons to be learnt; it is a case of applying a degree of composure, having a measured view to the way forward and accepting that, yes, it was not done properly, it was not perfect and there are lessons to be learnt but also acknowledging that there have been changes made.
I accept that we have five minutes left, so I will conclude my remarks there.
With only five minutes left to go, I will not be able to give a particularly detailed speech, but there are a few aspects of this that I would like to touch on, because time is limited. I know Senator Polley was keen to speak. She has waived her time, and I think it is worth pointing out on behalf of her and other Tasmanian senators that this inquiry reveals some particular issues that applied in Tasmania as a state with particular characteristics where this robodebt system impacted particularly deeply.
Participating in this inquiry was an incredibly moving experience, and I think any fair observer would have to say that this whole Centrelink robodebt debacle has been a particularly shameful episode in the life of the Turnbull government and a shameful episode in Australian public policy more generally. Sitting through committee hearings and listening to the personal stories of the many thousands of Australians who were affected by this robodebt debacle was incredibly distressing. It was incredibly distressing to listen to the experience that these people had had. They are good, honest Australian people who have been made to feel ashamed, humiliated, harassed by the department and by debt collectors and, in many cases of not having actually done anything wrong, accused of owing debts to Centrelink which they did not owe—in some cases tens of thousands of dollars more than they actually owed and in many cases not owing a debt whatsoever but put through the wringer by this government in its determination to drive savings from people who actually did not owe a debt.
Every person who was involved in this process should be ashamed of themselves for setting up the process the way that they did and for maniacally pursuing it despite the problems that were shown to exist. To this day we have seen no remorse whatsoever from the Department of Human Services, which oversaw this program, or their minister, Minister Tudge. Throughout this inquiry we repeatedly invited departmental witnesses to concede that there were errors in the system that they were rolling out, but they repeatedly denied that there were errors and came up with all sorts of language to explain themselves. Rather than people getting debt notices, they were getting 'clarification letters'. Rather than errors being made, there were 'clarifications that were required'. The departmental secretary repeatedly came to hearings and laid the blame for the problems with this system with Centrelink recipients for not engaging with the process despite the fact that her own department has ridiculous waiting times for people who try to get assistance from Centrelink. The blame was always laid squarely at the feet of Centrelink recipients.
I turn to the minister. Of course, infamously it was revealed that he had leaked personal information of numerous recipients to media outlets in an effort to combat attention that was being drawn to his failures and the failed system. There was an Australian Federal Police investigation into his behaviour which did clear him, but, whether his behaviour was legal or not legal, there is no question that his behaviour and that of his office in releasing personal information of people to the media was highly unethical.
The whole way through this program, rather than seeing any remorse or apologies from ministers who were involved, again the blame was always laid at Centrelink recipients, some of the most vulnerable people in the community, and it was always justified by the savings that were being generated. I said yesterday in another context that this government does not know the value of human life. It knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing, and this is another classic example where the bottom line was put above the needs of hardworking, honest Australians who were unfairly accused of owing debts and then pursued relentlessly by the department and by debt collectors.
Rather than this government owning up to mistakes and accepting responsibility, the fact that they have chosen to put in a dissenting report here demonstrates that, to this day, there is no acknowledgement from the government that they have done anything wrong. I do not have time to go through the litany of failures that existed and that were shown up by this inquiry, but I do commend the report to all senators to read. I honestly do hope that government ministers read this report and take on board the recommendations. Most importantly, this system should be halted immediately. There is a plan to expand it which will affect aged pensioners greatly. The government should halt immediately and reconsider.
Debate interrupted.
The question is that the bill stand as printed.
I am pleased that we have been able to commence with the minister with us now, so that I can get directly to some very important points. I do not have the precise time, but very, very recently the government tabled some amendments. My first question to the minister will be: is this it? Are these all the amendments that are due to appear, or is there a further sheet of amendments that is yet to arrive? The reason that I ask that question is that there has been so much speculation about what this debate may involve, and so little real information. There was even the question I asked earlier to the minister after question time about the order of production of documents. That was due, eventually, to be tabled, but that regular process was interrupted by the lengthy debate around the hours motion as we dealt with our concerns about the fact that we were being asked to establish hours to deal with this debate, without even an understanding of what the matter was before us. I have raised this same point with senators who have been involved in some discussions with the government . I will be very specific, because I know the minister needs us to be very specific on these issues. So far we have circulated for the government GX158, GX160 and GX167.
Obviously, we have had very little time to analyse those, but, on a very cursory analysis, they certainly do not seem to be the full monty. There are many other issues, including faster transition arrangements for government schools to reach better funding levels—although still, quite probably, not anywhere near the student resource standard, because there is no capacity to commit states in this process—but the full monty I am referring to here is this supposed moratorium that has been canvassed. What is unclear is what that moratorium actually relates to. Figures were circulated in the press overnight, and this seems to be the government's preferred mode of operating: 'Let's leak stories into the press rather than provide the public or the parliament with adequate information to assess a matter.' Overnight we saw stories, and the first one suggested, if I recall correctly, a one-year accommodation that was worth $62 million. Then today there was another story circulating, talking about an accommodation that was worth $50 million. So the crux of the matter, minister, is: what is the real deal? I am hoping that, rather than at midnight tonight or midnight tomorrow night, we might actually get to a stage of understanding what is in this bill.
So, what is the real deal and, of course, what is a special deal? That is a particular question that I would like the minister to answer, because, for even longer than the last seven weeks—if you go back to the lead-up of his campaign, going to his two case studies before the ministerial council—he has been telling us that he was going to have a consistent standard across Australia: his pure, one-size-fits-all model. That is what was going to be going forward, and then any other arrangements that might have been put in place under Gonski 1 involved special or, as I have quoted before—the former minister, Christopher Pyne—special dirty deals.
Well, now the government is back-pedalling, it seems. Maybe some of my colleagues on the other side, such as Senator Back, have been able to convince the government that they were never special deals. But special deals is what the minister has told us consistently. It is what he told us through estimates. It is what he has told us in answers to questions in this place time and time again. And it seems, according to the media that has been circulating—because that is all we really have to operate by—that what he previously couched as special deals are no longer special deals.
Now, I do not take credit myself. I know we have been pointing out to the government for some time now why certain matters were structured in certain ways, why there was a need for a review of the SES model and how indeed it was Mr Gonski's review that recommended that it should occur somewhat urgently. And time and time again the minister has argued otherwise. Indeed, we even had to have a correction from the department, because they tied themselves in knots trying to defend this minister on the fraudulent claims that were being made about the SES measure. So, the department tried to argue in the committee inquiry into this bill that indeed the SES measure had been adjusted and revised. That reflected earlier public comments that the minister had made in the media—or at least that he was reported as having made; maybe it was a spokesman. But at that point in time the government was arguing that it had been revised. And we know that was false. We know that the department needed to make a correction and that whilst they did not ultimately admit the consequence of that correction, the consequence was that the minister's claims were wrong; the SES measure had not been adjusted in the way that was claimed. It had never been taken down to the mesh blocks that had been suggested in the Gonski review, and that work still was urgently required.
Of course we have also heard the minister claiming that the Gonski review did not recommend that, until such time as that urgent review of the SES model occurred, systems should still be assessed as systems and a system weighted average calculation should continue to apply. No: instead, what this minister did in this bill was remove that arrangement, call it a special deal—even though it was an arrangement recommended very clearly in the Gonski review—and then, secondly, make further changes to the capacity to contribute arrangements for non-government primary schools. And remember, this is not a special deal for Catholics here; this was an arrangements for all school systems.
That is why in the committee inquiry—glossed over in the government's report—there were Lutherans, Anglicans and a range of other school systems saying that the impact of these changes was going to damage them as well. So while the minister is standing up there saying that there is growth for—as an example—independent schools, the 4.7 per cent over 10 years, what that glosses over is that there are school systems within even independent schools that were losing out over these changes. What is even worse is that this minister had in place a 10-year transition, he would have you believe. The capacity to contribute changes and the system weighted average changes were going to impact in full in 2018—in full, no transition, no accommodation. We have been told by the systems that have been asking this question—contrary to the non-answer that I got in the legislation inquiry—that systems have been told they would have no access to the adjustment funds. Perhaps that is the second question that the minister could clarify. Will systems have access to the transition adjustment funds, or is it designed specifically for another special group? But, of course, we do not have special groups, or so the minister would have us believe, now that he has done yet another backflip on how he is proceeding here.
So the next question that I would have related to that one is: what will happen, if, indeed, we do eventually see amendments—or maybe they are in front of me and I have not been able to digest them properly yet—that do adjust the system weighted average arrangements and that do deal with the capacity to contribute measure? If we do revert back to the full existing model arrangements, as some media commentary has suggested—and maybe for the purposes of these discussions I will call that the 'full Monty moratorium'—if we do get a full Monty moratorium, what will happen to systems such as the Anglican system? I cannot recall which state, but there is one system that has been seeking the minister to acknowledge them as a system. I have been told they have been waiting for 12 months. So, Senator Back, here is an interesting example of a case at point. We have a system that had an application before the minister to be recognised as a system, like their brothers and sisters in other states, and the minister refused to act upon it. He can correct me if my information is not accurate, but where does that system sit now? Are they inside or outside? Is it the full Monty moratorium, or is it something less? If it is something less, then what is the impact of not fully preserving the arrangements that Gonski recommended should be put in place? That is one question.
The next question is, as I have said: what about schools that are wanting to operate as systems? There are actually some educational benefits for encouraging and facilitating schools to operate as systems, not only issues like economy of scale but also issues like improving pedagogy and a range of other factors that we know work better. Indeed, that is why the Grattan Institute has been telling us for decades that there are very good things about how low-fee Catholic systemic schools operate. They produce very good outcomes, and that is why I am pleased that Senator Back has been fighting to preserve their capacity to continue to operate in that fashion. Why on earth, under a claim of 'We're going to improve Australian education for Australian school children', would we attack or compromise what we know works?
I will be listening intently to the minister when he is able to answer: do we have the full Monty moratorium? Does it include both the system weighted average arrangements that currently exist? And does it remove from this bill the capacity to contribute changes that we know are going to be so damaging to parish Catholic primary schools, amongst others? There are Lutheran schools and Anglican schools. They have all told us the same thing. So when the minister has a chance to answer that and direct me to the precise provisions in the amendments that have only just been circulated, I will be very pleased to see those.
Before I go into a range of other matters, I will return to how proposed changes might impact on government schools, because that is probably the most fundamental principle here—the funds that will not flow to Australian public schools and that will not ensure that Australian public schools get anywhere near the government's student resource standard.
The point that I have been making consistently over the last day or so is the point that the shadow minister has been making in the House as well. This is what is missed by most of the commentators that say, 'Oh, but there is more money here.' It is the proportion of that money that goes to public schools that is the issue here. That is the fundamental issue about why Gonski 2 is not a real Gonski. We have ended up with a situation under Gonski 2—it may be adjusted, and that is a further question for the minister—where only 50 per cent of the additional money goes to public schools, whereas under Gonski 1 80 per cent of it did. Indeed, we have a settlement across all sectors about that. (Time expired)
I am happy to inform Senator Collins that the government amendments circulated are the only intended government amendments to the bill. I am happy to advise her that adjustment funds where they meet conditions are available to all relevant approved authorities. Indeed, there is an example here in the ACT Catholic system where some adjustment funding has been provided for.
I would like to table the supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (3) to (7) and request (2) on sheet GX167 together.
Leave not granted.
Chair, take my previous remarks as a comment. I will let Senator Collins respond. If Senator Collins is going to be obstinate enough to insist that we go through each single amendment, then go through each single amendment the Senate will. If leave was denied purely because there is a clustering that Senator Collins wishes to be undertaken instead of the clustering that I proposed then I am of course happy to hear a reasonable argument on that front and to move such clusters.
The minister sought leave to move a certain number of amendments together. No, Minister, I am not being deliberately obstinate at this point in time, but I have just, as an example, asked you a range of questions. You have not responded to any of those; you have just sought to dive into amendments that have only just been circulated. I have already made the point that they have not yet been able to be digested. I asked you in my questions if you could please take me to the amendments that deal with some particular issues as part of the opening stage of this committee stage and you have not done so. So why on earth, if you cannot even conduct a regular committee stage debate where we deal with general matters first, would I be standing here agreeing to particular clusters?
There are two things that need to be dealt with before the opposition will reach an understanding of what clusters we are prepared to proceed with. One of those is that we have had time to digest your amendments. The second one, of course, is that we have a coherent running sheet that reflects those amendments. Until such time as that is before us—it is not obstinacy, Minister. You might have had these amendments in front of you, potentially, for 12 months, if I consider the question I asked you about Anglican systems. You might have known what your agenda is for 12 months, but this parliament, this Senate, has only just been provided with these amendments. Indeed, I think Senator Hanson-Young was still looking for the amendments. So, no; we will not, at this point in time, be discussing the order in which we will proceed through amendments, not until we have had an opportunity to digest them and not until we have a coherent running sheet that reflects them. You do not even know what a running sheet is, do you?—by the look on your face.
Yes, a revised running sheet was provided at 7.24 pm, Senator Collins, while we were both here in the chamber. The earlier running sheet also happened to have the government amendments on it. In fact, if you care to take a look, the only amendments added between running sheet No. 1 and revised running sheet No. 2 are actually the opposition amendments.
Chair, in order with the precedents of the Senate and the usual conduct a business in the Senate, I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (3) to (7) on sheet GX167 together. The usual order of the Senate is that we work our way through the running sheets as presented in that way.
Leave not granted.
I will explain again for the minister. He circulated a running sheet whilst I was on my feet. Frankly, it is impossible, Minister, to digest anything while you are on your feet, making a contribution in the chamber. You might not understand that, but I think the public at large would have a pretty sensible idea that that is the case. So that is one point.
The second point is we have not long had your amendments, and I think everyone in this chamber, including Senator Back, is still trying to digest what is there. You have not answered my question yet about whether there are any more whether this is it.
Senator Birmingham interjecting—
This is it, is it? Okay.
Senator Birmingham interjecting—
No, I did not hear you say that, Minister. But, again, given that all of us started the day and meetings at around eight o'clock this morning and we are now in here approaching eight o'clock at night, I am not surprised that I did not comprehend part of what you might have put. That does not override the critical issue here, which is that we will have a general discussion about this bill and about the amendments that will hopefully allow us some time to digest what has very, very recently been circulated.
The minister, at the start of this committee stage contribution, got up and gave a general presentation about his views of the world and how he regretted that he did not have the opportunity in the second reading debate to close the debate. Well, that was your own colleague who did that, Senator Birmingham, and there were indeed other senators who would have taken the opportunity to make a second reading contribution. And I think, by virtue of senator Cormann's conduct, you will find that those same senators have some issues that they want to address in this committee-stage consideration. So I would not anticipate that you will be getting to dealing with amendments in detail for a little while yet.
You were denied the opportunity to make a contribution, as were a number of other senators. You brought on this debate in a way that you had not given the Senate notice of. You commenced this bill as the first bill this morning rather than as it has had been advertised, as the second for the day. Other senators had commitments. Indeed, if I recall correctly, Senator McKenzie did not get here to speak at the allocated time on the running sheet. She did not get here, because she had another commitment. Well, indeed, several of my colleagues did as well.
So, you will need to understand that we will not be moving from the general discussion in the committee stage phase until we are ready. When we are ready—it is not obstinacy, but when we are ready—I will be able to give you an understanding of what clusters we are happy to proceed with, and we will move through this committee stage consideration in an orderly manner. But we are not going to be rushed. We are not going to be hoodwinked. We are not going to be presented with more fantasy figures that you cannot justify. We will hold this government to account, and we will challenge you when you are trying to pull the wool over any particular senator's eyes. We will ensure that your moratorium is exposed if it is not the full monty. We will ensure that the other arrangements of your agreements stand up to scrutiny. You can go behind closed doors. You can fail to provide the information that you should, consistently, time and time again. You can hoodwink the crossbench into agreeing to an inadequate legislation inquiry that is rushed when it does not need to be, that is pushed through this Senate in a fashion that should not occur. You can—sometimes—get away with those things. But at the end of the day you need to come into this chamber and face the opposition.
So no, we will not be rushed. Yes, we will look closely at these amendments that you have only just circulated. We will match them against the selective leaking of stories in the media that has occurred over the last couple of days. We will challenge those senators who believe they have a particular deal, that the deal actually does stand up to scrutiny. And I am sure the Greens will do the same. They know what this government has been offering in their discussions better than we do, and I am sure they will be taking some considerable time to ensure that what we are dealing with here are the facts. So no, Senator Birmingham. We will not be moving to a discussion about the detail of your first amendment until all of those other issues have been addressed and indeed until we have more adequate answers to the general questions that I have already asked and that I am sure many of my colleagues will want to ask, too.
I do not think I could articulate the arguments from our side any better than Senator Collins, but I do have some questions, because I have been inundated with calls and emails from concerned parents and teachers around Tasmania and around the country. And they are not just from Catholic schools, as was asserted earlier today when I was making a contribution, but also from the state school system and from the Anglican schools. People are very concerned, because so many mixed messages have been sent out by this government. But we do know—there is one thing that is very clear, as far as we know, standing here right now—that this government plans to take away $22 billion from Australian children.
But I do think it is important to actually try to gather some information, because during question time today the minister was saying things about those on this side who were asking questions—that it is why we need to put more emphasis on education, because we on this side cannot add up. Well, quite frankly, it is not us that are having the problem with the figures; it is this government and this minister. We have already established, through question time today, that Lauriston Girls' School in Melbourne, which has fees for its primary school of up to $27,000, is now set to get seven times the funding increase of other primary schools. One in particular that was mentioned today was Anula Primary School in Darwin. I ask the minister: how is that fair?
I also want to talk about some schools that I visited in Tasmania, and I will get to that in a moment. But first I want to ask you, Minister, because you were very diligent in avoiding answering the question when it was raised by Senator Brown, about the cut in funding for children with disabilities who get assistance through our Tasmanian education system: how can a cut not be a cut? Also, can you provide the figure for the funding they currently receive and the funding they will receive through this bill, if it gets passed.
If it gets passed it will be because of the dirty deals you have done with those people on the crossbenches. You have done a deal with Senator Hanson, who made outrageous comments in relation to children with disabilities in our state primary and high schools throughout this country. Senator Hanson is the senator from Queensland who will never stand up for a school like the Holy Spirit Catholic School in Townsville, which does a fantastic job. Yet, you, as the education minister, are sidling up to Pauline Hanson and her party to get your dirty deal through at the cost of children with disabilities in this country, despite her outrageous comments. I find that grossly offensive. I think you will find, if you look in the media—if you go on any social media site—that your reputation has been greatly tarnished by that issue alone.
What is the impact on Tasmanian schools as a whole? How many children are going to be impacted by these savage cuts? Can you explain to the Senate what this government's modelling is based on, so that I can go back to my constituents and try to explain to them. How many classrooms are going to lose valuable resources? Can you tell me, if we break it down into Catholic schools in Tasmania, what the actual cut to the Catholic schools will be, because I want to know whether or not their figures match up with yours.
We know that you have not even been able to provide accurate data to your own caucus, and that you are telling some members of your caucus one thing and something quite different to others. Who knows what you have been telling the crossbenchers in trying to get their support for your grubby deal! How do Tasmanian schools fair in comparison with the King's School in Sydney? The King's School is a private school, which from the figures we have seen is going to have their funding increased dramatically. I want you to be able to explain to me why Tasmanian children are going to have to pay the price so that you can look after your friends in the top end of town.
I also want to look at some specific schools that I have visited. I know about the great work that they are doing at some of the most disadvantaged schools in our community. Can you please tell me what the impact on the Youngtown Primary School will be. That school does wonderful things. I am not sure if Senator Bushby, who is here, has even bothered to visit any schools in Launceston. I know he is supposedly moving his office to Launceston, but we have not heard him make any contribution at all in this debate. So I want you to explain to me, so that Senator Bushby can understand, what the impact is going to be on the Youngtown Primary School.
Mayfield Primary School has been recognised nationally over the years for the wonderful work that they have done in an area of great disadvantage. Their teachers have been acknowledged at a national level. They believe this change is going to have a huge impact on their ability to look after their community. Can you explain to me how much extra money they are going to get? Then there is Port Dalrymple School down in George Town. Can you explain to me if their funding is going to increase, and, if so, by how much, or why those children, who are from families who need all the support they can get to ensure their children have a good education, are going to be disadvantaged and their teachers lose money and resources?
The Friends' School in Hobart—that's right, it is one of your favourite ones; it is a private school—are going to significantly increase their money. Can you please explain to me and justify why The Friends' School will get more money? I do not have a problem with private schools at all; it should be about choice. Many families do make a choice to invest in their children's education. It is just very unfortunate that this government sees education as a cost rather than an investment. Minister, can you explain to the chamber why The Friends' School in Hobart, a well-funded private school that provides a good education, gets an increase when Norwood Primary School, Sacred Heart Primary School, West Launceston Primary School, Mayfield Primary School, Youngtown Primary School and East Launceston Primary School are going to lose out in this education bill?
I was wondering too if you can tell me what the impact will be on the Launceston Preparatory School, a small private school in Launceston that does an absolutely wonderful job for its students. Can you explain it to me and give us the figures? After all, Minister, you are the one who was saying that we in the opposition have not been able to add up. I think you said 'we should all go back to school' or something; I do not want to verbal you, but you made some trite comment. I would be most interested in the figures. I just do not get it. You have met with various sections within the education sector and they have asked you to go back to the drawing board and ensure that there is real fairness in this bill. We on this side have urged you to withdraw and redraft the bill so that it can get support. But you have failed to do that. You are hell-bent on moving forward—and who knows what dirty deals you have done. Perhaps you can now let us know.
I have not had the opportunity to see the amendments that are being proposed, but I am really interested. I know that my constituency of Tasmania wants to know—whether it is the public schools, the Anglican schools or the Catholic schools—what is fair in this bill that is going to ensure that Tasmanian schools are not going to be worse off. We know Tasmania has the second-lowest amount of funding in the country. At the same time, Senator Bushby, Senator Duniam and the President, Senator Parry, are not saying anything about the impact of this bill and the cuts to Tasmania. The only senator on the government side who has raised concerns is Senator Abetz. Unfortunately, for personal reasons, he cannot be here this week. But he has spoken up. Not one of the others has spoken up. Is this punishment for the Tasmanian community because they voted the incompetent Liberal House of Representatives members for Bass, Lyons and Braddon out of parliament? Is this another attempt by Mr Turnbull and this government to punish Tasmania? That is what it seems like to me. And it is not just me who thinks that way. The Tasmanian community are fed up with this government. Ever since 2 July, when they got rid of those three amigos out of Tasmania—mind you, they have all landed plum jobs provided by this government—they have known; and this piece of legislation is just another move by this government to show how arrogant you are, how out of touch you are and that you just do not understand the word 'fairness'.
Minister, I am looking forward to your explanation so that I can go to my community and try and explain to them the dirty deals you have done. Perhaps you could enlighten us—I think you have the obligation to do that in this place—of the deals you have done and put in place with people like the Pauline Hanson party. We would like to know what it is that you have promised them. Have you got something in writing for them? Is Senator Back going to ride off into retirement and be happy? Have you actually done a deal for the Catholic Education Commission in this country? We want to know, and we have a right to know. From what I have been hearing around this building over the last couple of days, there are all sorts of rumours going around. What have you done to make sure that people like Mr Abbott do not undermine the Prime Minister yet again in the media. If I were him, I would use this, because he knows, like I know, that the parents of Australian kids, whether those kids are in a state school, a private school or a Catholic school, are not going to forget the way they have been treated. You have taken them for granted.
What is it when the Catholic Education Commission meets with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education and Training? What a badge of honour that would be: to say that you are the worst minister for education in five decades and a Prime Minister who has failed to consult with his minister, the one charged with this responsibility. This is a huge investment from any government into education and the government has failed to consult and talk to those people who deliver more than just education in their communities. As I have said before in this place, Catholic parishes set up schools where they are needed to provide not only education but also support for the entire family. This government is so arrogant—and who knows what else is going on in the civil war in the dysfunctional government that this is.
Minister, I will draw you back to the schools that I would like some answers about tonight—that is, the Tasmanian schools and the overall lack of funding that is in this bill for them. They are not going to be any better off. Some of that money will never reach the schools which you have alluded to over the course of this week. I would like you tell us what the impact is going to be on Tasmanian schools, broken down into public schools, Catholic, schools, Anglican schools and those private schools I have mentioned. I, along with many people who will be listening to this broadcast, will be very interested to see how you try and justify the sort of dirty deal that you have obviously done during the course of the last 48 hours.
I am happy to inform the senator that, in relation to the Tasmanian school systems, funding for the government system in Tasmania is estimated to be $183 million in 2017. That will steadily grow under the proposal put forward by the government each and every year to $261 million by 2027. That, of course, is funding that would be used to fund a number of the schools that you referenced in your remarks.
In relation to the Catholic education system in Tasmania, their forecast funding in 2017 is $149 million. That is estimated to grow to $226 million by 2027. In relation to independent schools or independent school systems within Tasmania, under the government's proposal they are forecast to receive $76 million in 2017 and that is forecast and estimated to steadily grow to $107 million by 2027. All of them by 2027, under the legislation for the bill before the parliament, would have their share of funding calculated according to the same consistent needs based formula as any other either government school system in the country or non-government school authority in the country. It will be applied in an entirely consistent manner.
If we are not going to proceed in an orderly way, as is the normal custom of the committee, and instead we are going to be subjected to stalling tactics and filibustering speeches, then I shall—
Senator Polley interjecting—
No, he's not going to answer your questions.
I did just answer the questions. I move request (2) on sheet GX167:
This is a technical request that ensures that there is no ambiguity in relation to the calculation of the starting Commonwealth share for schools and that the amounts of funding, both in base terms and in loading terms, accurately and clear reflect the notional application of the needs based funding model in 2018 and in 2017 dollar terms to provide for accurate funding.
I would draw the minister back to the question. If you are talking about a collective of the funding going to Tasmania, I clearly asked you to explain to the Senate, so I can explain to my constituents, why they are getting cuts. They are not getting the resources that they want, as opposed to somewhere like Kings College. Why is there more money going to the Friends' School in Hobart than what there is for the schools that are highly in need of these resources? In fact, they need additional money in places like Mayfield, Youngtown and Norwood Primary School. Why can't you provide those figures for us here tonight? If you are really serious about wanting to have support, you should be able to come in here and justify the allocation of funds that are being taken away from Tasmanian kids to give to the top end of town.
Chair, I just provided very clearly for the senator the growth rates in estimated funding for each of the different systems in Tasmania, demonstrating, that contrary to her claims, there are no cuts. There is in fact growth across each of those different parts of the school system in Tasmania. Of course, the senator knows full well that the history in relation to school funding in Australia is that public schools are largely funded by the state government, as is their constitutional responsibility and history; and that non-government schools have historically be largely funded by the Commonwealth government.
A result of the proposals that the Turnbull government is putting in place is that public education, government schools in the state system, will receive a record level of support from the Commonwealth government. We will ensure that 20 per cent of the schooling costs across all of those different systems will be funded by the Commonwealth government. That is an increase from the current estimate of around 17 per cent. You do not have to go back too many years to get down to 13 per cent—in fact just around the time that this government was elected—and not too many years prior to that you will find that it was in single digit territory. So there will be record levels of support for government schools in Tasmania, as there will be record levels of support for government schools across every jurisdiction. It will be calculated according to the same consistent needs based formula across all of those different jurisdictions, ensuring that, regardless of state boundaries, we do not play favourites to one state over another and that we actually have an application of a fair, consistent funding model.
Minister, there are a number of questions that have already been raised by my colleagues on this side of the chamber with regard to the special deals that you said you were not going to make that you are going to make, and the deals that you said were not happening that are happening. We still do not have any clear answer from you in response to the first set of questions that were asked by Senator Collins. They went to the heart of matters of great concern in the community, which is to do with the system weighted average. Minister, I am sure that you have had significant lobbying from genuinely concerned parents across the country in every single sector. In fact, one thing I would count as an achievement is that you have managed to upset everybody in the government school system, everybody in the Catholic school system and a whole lot of people in the independent school system as well. One of the things that you have failed to answer is anything of detail that will give people any confidence at all that you might be telling them something approaching the truth.
The questions that Senator Collins asked earlier I will reiterate in perhaps a less eloquent way. I have to emphasise the importance of the need for you to answer these questions in this general debate before we can possibly move to a more detailed discussion of the very important papers that have landed here in the Senate this evening but have not landed until the twelfth hour, so much is your disdain for making yourself available for the proper scrutiny of this Senate. I think you are even more concerned about getting out of here with this bill under your belt, because you do not want the scrutiny of the community at all, particularly those who are educated.
Minister, I draw your attention to Senator Collin's questions for very clear explanations about the nature of the so-called moratorium that is some part of a stitched up deal that I do not think is anywhere in writing because nobody has been to be able provide it. There have been plenty of requests being sent around the country—all over the place: what is going on? What is the moratorium? What does it look like? People are asking these questions around the country this afternoon and tonight, and this is our chance to get a decent answer from you. Minister, if you have a bit of information on a bit of paper, that would be lovely. We are happy to receive pieces of paper at the last minute, clearly, or we would not be dealing with this process in this way. Just give us the bit of paper that explains your supposed deal that is the moratorium. What we want to know is, in this moratorium, what are you actually doing with the system weighted average that is going to impact on every single school in a system? What is the status of your response to the concerns about the capacity to contribute? When and in what way are you going to implement this moratorium around those two critical factors? Does the moratorium remove the capacity to contribute the dilemma that absolutely exists? It has been very well articulated by the Catholic system.
We could have avoided getting to this place, if, before you had made your big announcement with the fanfare on that Monday, you had actually taken phone calls from peak representative groups that wanted to discuss these details with you. They approached in good faith. I do not know what would make them think that that was a reasonable thing to do, but they did approach you in good faith, seeking the opportunity to share their deep, rich and long understanding of their system, to share their deep commitment to the education of children in systems. They wanted to have you understand that, and they were ready to talk to you. But you completely ignored that, Minister. Now there is this hasty retreat of some sort that is as yet unknown to us and that is being attempted to be stitched up perhaps as we speak.
I am going to give Senator Back some congratulations on his efforts to stand up for the Catholic system. Because I did not make a contribution during the valedictory speeches yesterday, I want to acknowledge now that the time I spent on the education committee in the last parliament with Senator Back was a time when I absolutely could understand his commitment to education. He was in defence mode for the Abbott government, which said that there should be absolutely no money going to schools. So he had a difficult job to do. But when we went to Western Australia and to Perth for a day of hearings, I could tell the integrity that he had in his dealings with people in that state. People who came to put their concerns about that version of the legislation said that Senator Back had served particularly Catholic education in Western Australia very, very well and that he had a deep and rich understanding of that sector. So my hopes and the hopes of 25 per cent of the children who attend schools around this country in the Catholic education system—25 per cent in the nation—all hang on whether or not Senator Back has in his departure from the Senate been able to save the country from the worst excesses of a deal that has been described as the worst in 50 years.
So what has Senator Back actually got out of this greedy government—this government that acts with such disdain—for the expertise of education authorities around this country? What did he get out in terms of the funds and the impact on the SRS? What has actually been achieved with regard to that?
I am delighted that I get to ask one particular question, and I genuinely hope for an answer. Instead of accepting Gonski's recommendations that the sectarian wars that have led to so much inequity across our schools should end, that both state and federal governments should in partnership take responsibility for the excellent education of all students in all systems, instead of looking towards that vision of a fair sharing of resources between state and federal governments to make sure all Australians get their opportunity to learn, this government has gone in a direction that takes us away from unity, it has gone in a direction that takes us away from shared responsibility and it has taken us away from a focus on ensuring equal opportunity for children who are born into different states and into families who are choosing different systems. So why, Minister, instead of accepting that shared responsibility, which was so much a part of the report delivered by David Gonski, have you moved to an arbitrary decision to give SRS support of 80 per cent to Catholic and independent schools and only 20 per cent to children in government schools?
One thing that I absolutely know and I think is completely indisputable is that children do not choose their parents. They arrive, and they do not have any choice about where their parents are going to send them to school. I do not think it is unreasonable to believe that every child born in Australia today should be able in six years time to walk through the gate of any school in the country, whether it is Catholic, independent or government, or city regional, rural or remote—anywhere in the country. We have had the opportunity to deliver funding that would have allowed equitable experience of education, but instead, Minister, you have chosen this 80-20 model.
Where is the research? Where is the background documentation that says that that is the way to go forward? It is certainly nowhere in the recommendations of the Gonski panel. We can call it Gonski 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 or 5.0, and with greater numeracy education I suppose we can go on to infinity; we can call it whatever number we like—but it is not truthful, it is not fair and it is not responsible for delivering equitable education access for every Australian. For people who are listening to this debate and going. 'Oh, my God, it is just so confusing', it is confusing, as Senator Collins says—it is very confusing. It is actually so confusing that I think Stephen Elder, from the Catholic Education Commission in Victoria, has had members of the coalition ring him up asking him to explain to them what is going on.
This government have made an absolute mishmash of this. Gonski 2.0 is not what they are trying to make it out to be. It is a tool for delivering sector-entrenching discriminatory education experiences for Australian children. I am a senator for New South Wales and I am very concerned about my state—and I will have some questions about that—but Minister tell me I am wrong, prove to me I am wrong, when I say that students in the Northern Territory in government schools who are already behind are going to stay behind. They going to stay behind because you are not addressing the reality that that government school system needs an awful lot more than the 20 per cent of the SRS that you are going to offer to give those children a chance. Minister, explain to me and all the teachers of this country, explain to me and all the parents of children in this country, how it is fair to give the same proportion to states and overlook the fact that there are incredibly differentiating needs amongst those children in the states.
Australians who elected those opposite in 2013 were sold a message that there would be a funding match dollar for dollar. They were misled then. And the lie that was on those blue-and-white-striped posters that everybody saw as they walked in was so disingenuous that it did not even have a little asterisk at the bottom that said, 'But we won't be giving you years 5 and 6.' It did not even say that. So at this juncture, four years down the track, why should the Australian people trust you now, when you failed so badly then? Why should senators on this side, who absolutely believe in equitable access to funding for all children in all systems, believe that the legislation that you are pushing through this house with unseemly haste is actually going to address any of those inequities that were in fact the driver of the research that was undertaken by Mr David Gonski and his team?
Prove it to me, Minister. Show me the figures. Help me understand. Answer the questions. Where did 80-20 come from? What is the deal that you have done—hopefully, well negotiated by Senator Back but still unseen by anybody in the sector that I have been in touch with? Show us the paper. Show us the money! Show the 25 per cent of Australian students in Catholic schools that they are not going to get done over in the next 12 months by this little deal that you have stitched up in the last day.
The reason we ended up with the report that we got from Mr Gonski, and the recommendation that he and his team put together—which was fair funding for every child in every single school, with additional loadings on top of that SRS evening out for disability, for indigeneity, for small and country schools, for low SES and non-English-speaking backgrounds—is that their experience of seeing Australian schools across this country was eye opening. I remember reading reports saying they could not believe that they had gone to schools where the resourcing was so totally inadequate that they were surprised that any learning at all could happen.
At the heart of all of this, it is not a game of politics. It is about the capacity to create an environment in which the young people of our country, whom I consider to be our greatest asset, can learn—where teachers do not have to ask the P&F to fundraise to be able to buy $10,000 worth of school readers so that children in kindergarten and first class can have a book that is not dog-eared and falling apart, and actually learn to read. That is the kind of resourcing that I want for schools. I do not want primary school teachers to have to choose two, out of six kids who need Reading Recovery, because that is all they can afford, damning the other four to lost opportunities for learning.
Explain to me, Minister, what you are doing and how it is going to work, because, frankly, I do not have any confidence in the numbers that you speak about, and neither the Catholic sector nor the government sector has any. Indeed, no-one who has interacted with you in this process actually believes you. Prove to it me, Minister. I would love to have some answers to my questions.
Senator O'Neill asked a few questions in relation to funding for the Northern Territory, which I did address during question time today. Very quickly, funding for the Northern Territory government school system is projected to grow from $191 million this year to $261 million by 2027. The senator asked a range of questions about the particularly high need in the Northern Territory, a fact which I acknowledged in question time today and a fact which is of course borne out by the fact that per-student funding in the Northern Territory is today the highest in the nation, at around $8,360, on average, per student. That will grow to around $11,870 per student by 2027. That is far and away the highest per-student funding in the country. In fact, it will be around 55 per cent more per student by 2027 than it will be in any other jurisdiction, reflective of their particular need.
The senator also asked about the original Gonski report and the views of the original Gonski panel on this legislation. I would draw the attention of the senator to the words of a number of individuals. Mr David Gonski said:
… I'm very pleased to hear that the Turnbull government has accepted the fundamental recommendations of our 2011 report, and particularly regarding a needs based situation … I'm very pleased that there is substantial additional money, even over indexation and in the foreseeable future.
Fellow panel member Dr Ken Boston describes the legislation as 'a new deal of historic national importance' and says:
There are no grounds for opposition to the schools funding bill in principle … It will be a tragedy if the school funding bill is voted down in the Senate.
I would also highlight the comments of Ms Kathryn Greiner, another member of the Gonski panel, who says of the legislation and the policy:
… I think they're on the moral ground. I think the decisions were right, I think the decisions are just.
She also says:
Gonski 2.0 delivers what the Gonski report wanted: an accountable, transparent, equitable, sector-blind funding formula.
Concerning responsibility for government school systems, I would highlight, Senator O'Neill, my response earlier to your colleague from Tasmania, where I identified that the Commonwealth share of funding to government school systems will indeed grow to a record level under these reforms, more than twice what it was not that many years ago.
I cannot let the minister's verballing continue in the way it has. I remind senators and others listening to this debate that the Gonski review panel involved two other members, and the minister has made no reference to their concerns with respect to this legislation. But the verballing of Mr David Gonski continues. Rather than stress the ways in which this minister has done that, I will segue into a press release from this evening, on which I will make another point in a moment. If we take it from the Nick Xenophon Team:
This is the REAL Gonski and we have three members of the original Gonski panel, including David Gonski himself, saying unambiguously it would be a disaster for Australian education if this package didn't pass.
David Gonski has never said that. David Gonski has said, with relief, that this government has accepted a principle of needs based funding, but Mr David Gonski has never endorsed the 80-20 approach or the Commonwealth-only approach to needs based funding, and to suggest otherwise is a blatant lie.
There are two other matters that I would like to deal with in this general discussion. The first of those, which I have raised I think now twice today, is the Senate's order for production of documents. The minister said to me after question time that he had submitted a letter in response to that order. Unfortunately, because the government has changed the arrangement for hours today, the tabling of that letter did not occur. Worse than that, the normal courtesy that would apply in a matter such as this—that the minister would furnish a copy of that material or correspondence to the senator who had originated that request—has not occurred. For this minister to come in here and claim that the opposition is being obstinate is just outrageous. He has not even followed basic courtesies of the Senate in relation to an order of the Senate for production of documents. This is not just the opposition; the whole Senate insisted that this minister provide that material by the end of yesterday, and he has not done so.
I can only second-guess at this stage what that letter might say. It might say, as some other colleagues have suggested to me, that there are no such documents. If that is the case, that raises very serious questions about the quality of the discussions that have occurred with the crossbenchers here. If the crossbenchers have not even seen modelling about moving forward from a ten-year transition and what that might really mean, that highlights what a farce has been occurring.
The other option, of course, is for the minister to argue that it is not in the public interest for that information to be made available. Maybe he has done that. We do not know that yet. We do not know what his answer to the Senate order has been, and, until such time as we do, it is not being obstinate to suggest that the minister should be answering reasonable questions and providing information to the Senate before we proceed into a detailed consideration of the amendments that we are indeed still digesting.
Beyond the order for production, though, I have to reflect again on this press release and its sheer audacity. It seems that by press release from the Nick Xenophon Team we can understand more about this package than the minister is telling us here and now. So let me inform the Senate what the Nick Xenophon Team tells us is 'the real Gonski win for Aussie schools'. Remember: they are anticipating a vote that has not even occurred yet. According to the Nick Xenophon Team, 'the real Gonski win for Aussie schools' is that the Nick Xenophon Team successfully advocated for:
Australian schools to receive $23.5 billion over the next 10 years ($4.9 billion above the Government's original plan)
So where is the modelling about what that will actually do? I hope the Nick Xenophon Team has actually seen it, because I would like to understand what that additional funding is going to do and what the impact of it will be. If the impact of it will be that schools like Kings get even more then we have got big problems. But let's wait and see. This debate might shed some further light on some of these issues.
The second dot point in this press release is:
Under-funded schools to reach funding targets in six years instead of 10.
Is that all of them? Is that some of them? What are the differences across states? Which ones? Hopefully, maybe, the Nick Xenophon Team can come in and tell us some of this, because the minister is not answering these questions.
The next dot point is:
National Schools Resourcing Board to be set up to review and improve the school funding methodology.
Hear, hear to that. I think that the Senate is united on that one, and the reason that the Senate is united on that one once we see the detail of what is being proposed here—hopefully, I can digest the detail in the government's amendments soon—is that we will know if it will save us from the school funding estimator debacle. We will not have a department politicised by you putting out material that is blatantly false. If we have an independent school resources board that can be responsible for the quality of the data that is circulated as it is on My School, for instance, and there is some independence in that process, given the way this minister has conducted himself, that will be a good thing. I have never seen as outrageous an exercise as the minister pretending to Australian parents that there will not be pressure on their school fees, because he has diddled his figures. He has diddled the figures for 2017. He has adjusted them to pretend that his new formula applies when it will never apply to 2017 to fool parents into believing that they get increases between 2017 and 2018 and to cover up the pressure for parents to pay school fees that he is introducing in this bill and as far as I can see still remain in this bill.
Worse than that: he then went out and said Catholic education were basically rent-seekers, that they had a special case and they were only squawking because they were potentially going to lose their special deal. That is what this minister did, and he is still doing it if those capacity-to-contribute arrangements still exist in this bill.
But let's move on to the next point the Nick Xenophon Team tells us about:
There will be benchmarks for state and territory governments so that they pay their share of education funding.
Benchmarks for state government. Senator Back, in your valedictory speech you made a particular comment that I noted. I cannot remember the exact phrase but it was basically that a carrot is better than a stick. Gonski 1 involved a carrot for state governments. The carrot for state governments was that they would get an additional two Commonwealth dollars for each additional one state dollar to get all schools to a common Student Resource Standard. Now, this potential stick method will be debated for an awful long time in here because we are a long way from being satisfied that you have any reasonable capacity to deliver benchmarks for state and territory governments, so that they pay their share of education funding. You have already deferred these issues to COAG mid next year, so how you might have managed to hoodwink some relatively new members and senators into thinking you have got a better capacity will be very interesting to hear.
We already have the Nick Xenophon Team anticipating the vote and claiming they have a real Gonski win for Aussie schools. In reading this press release we can see that they are simply swallowing your verballing of a number of people in this debate. The verballing of David Gonski himself, I think, is the most outrageous. Now that that disease has spread from yourselves to the Nick Xenophon Team, it really does need to be called out.
I could go on through the two pages of this win that the Nick Xenophon Team is anticipating, but let me go to the more critical issue here, because there is one dot point they do not have, which is in an article written by Paul Osborne in The Australian this afternoon—I think it is online. It refers to a $50 million transition fund. Does that mean that we have four transition funds now. During the inquiry into the legislation we were told that there were three transition funds, but now, at least in the press but not in the Nick Xenophon Team win, we hear about this $50 million transition fund and it is described as being 'for Catholic and independent schools over 12 months'. So, is there a new $50 million transition fund? If so, where is it provided for? Is it in the amendments or is it provided for in some other way that we need to source? If there is such a fund, what are the terms of access to that fund? What is this $50 million meant to cover? Is it the 'partial-monty moratorium'; it is certainly not the 'full-monty moratorium'.
We have already read in the press today that Catholic Education, for instance, and probably the independent sector as well, have no confidence in this minister. So why would they have confidence about this $50 million transition fund, if it indeed exists? We should not really be having to ask these questions. The minister should have presented the full details of what is involved here. But if there is this fund, what are the terms for access to it?
I would like to use the opportunity of this committee-stage consideration to be very clear about this. We know from the legislation inquiry that there is already contention about independent schools and Catholic schools accessing the Students First Fund. We understand that, originally, the minister naively committed to independent schools that that would continue as it has been. Subsequently he told them, 'No, actually. We are going to go to a proportional break-up for access to that fund, because we are taking the system weighted average benefits away from systemic schools. So, no, you will not have the preferred arrangement that might previously have existed.' The independent sector, before the legislation inquiry, argued a very different story. They said that that fund was meant to help them deal with the fact that they do not have the benefits of operating as a system and that they should be able to preserve their existing arrangements for accessing it, which is roughly, I think, 60-40. Which is it, Minister?
This really is a moving feast. It is a dog's breakfast. We will wait to hear from you whether there is a $50 million transition fund. Is access to that fund going to be proportionate? Is it really only with respect to systems, is there some broader purpose for it or have you just rebadged the existing transition funds? What is the detail of what transition funds are going to be available? Surely you understand, coming in here today, Minister, that you need to add to what was covered in the legislation inquiry about the existing transition funds—the general one, the one for the ACT and the one for the Northern Territory—and tell us what this other transition fund for Catholic or independent schools might be and what it is meant to cover. I can see that the minister is not even listening to this very important question, which is very sad because it means that he thinks he has a done deal. (Time expired)
I am very, very keen to contribute to this debate. Can I start out by saying that my interest is in the education of children across the nation. In 2011 I instigated, with the authority of the Senate, a select committee inquiry into teaching and learning in Australia. On that committee, of course, was Senator Marshall, Senator Penny Wright and Senator McKenzie. This was at the time Gonski was being examined, and it was not an inquiry into the high-level Gonski macro. It was an inquiry into: why aren't teachers teaching and why aren't children learning?
We did a lot of good work on the selection of people going into teacher training; the quality of teacher training programs; the amount of practicum that they had in there; whether they were classed as ready, because we learnt that more than 50 per cent of new teachers were not ready; what the levels of mentoring were; what the involvement of parents was from the youngest age; professional development, of course; and teachers who were being asked to teach out of their level of expertise et cetera. Discipline was an incredibly important position.
At the same time, we visited China. We met with them in Beijing, Shanghai and Chengdu. Of course, I am familiar with the situation in Singapore and Finland. In each of those three jurisdictions student discipline in classrooms is not an issue, because the children are disciplined and the teachers teach. What was very interesting at that time was that, whilst money was important, we had doubled the expenditure of funds in our education system, yet our standards had gone down. I said to them in Shanghai, 'Maybe it's the nature of the international comparator that is being used.' They said, 'It was developed in Melbourne, so, if you're not happy with it, go back and have a look at it yourselves.'
I put on the record that I have a vital interest in the education of all children in this country. Also, I will just comment on the government-funding sector. I have no difficulty with the amendments as I have seen them in the legislation, because under the Constitution the teaching of children in government schools is a state responsibility. If, indeed, the minister is going to move to a commonality over time whereby the federal government contributes 20 per cent and the states contribute 80 per cent—and I can see that in the amendments there are provisions to make sure, whether it be government schools support or private schools support, that the state and territory governments continue to commit at least to that level—then I applaud that.
I now want to go to discussions relating to the Catholic education system, about which I have most experience. Also, in my time in this place, I have been particularly interested in the independent schools system and their contribution. I was on the Catholic Education Commission for nine years in the mid-eighties to the mid-nineties. I was on a country school board when this so-called concept of co-responsibility was first mooted. Of course, being from the bush, I immediately thought, 'This is a grab by the rich city schools against the country schools.' I then went to see the then head of Catholic Education, Dr Peter Tannock, whose name will come up again in a few minutes, and Mr Mike Beacham. I jumped up and down and carried on such treat that they said to me, 'The only way to shut you up and to have you understand that co-responsibility is about the wealthier schools supporting the poorer schools is to put you on the commission, and then you yourself can be the overall auditor.' So I became the parent member of the commission. I have even had somebody in email traffic to me in the last couple of days saying that I have a conflict of interest and I have been corrupt. How a parent member of the commission, who is there at a totally voluntary capacity, can be corrupt, I do not know. What I did come to learn, of course, was that the co-responsibility concept and the funding became critical.
I then moved to the board of Santa Maria College, where both my wife and daughter had been at school. I was about to call them 'old girls' but, as Senator Moore knows very well, you would never call them old girls—you would call them past students. Why I had to go onto the Santa Maria board, and not Linda, I will never know. Anyhow, there were only three schools that did not come aboard initially. One was Aquinas College, a Christian Brothers college, where I had been at school. The other one was Santa Maria, where I was on the board, and the third was John XXIII, which had been the Jesuits' St Louis and Loreto. I guess I had a bit of influence in those colleges coming on board.
What has been very interesting over time has been the absolute strength—I can speak with a lot of authority about Western Australia—I cannot speak much, although I have engaged in this process, as others know, in terms of the Senate inquiry, and I made it my business to spend a lot of time recently with the South Australians to understand it. There are a couple of points that I want people who might be listening to this conversation this evening to understand. I understand that my colleague Senator Hinch the other day said that I ought to get on my bike and leave because the only funding that ever should come from governments is to government schools. I want to comment on that.
The first point I want to make is—and maybe the independents are included in this—the cost of educating a child in a Catholic school in Australia is 90 per cent of that of educating a child in a government school. Remember that—90 per cent. The second point is that the Catholic system enjoys, as a benefit from the Commonwealth, which is vitally important, about the cost of the teachers' salaries. That is about the contribution that the Commonwealth pays to Catholic schools. But it is the parents, through fees and the co-responsibility system, that actually meet the balance of those costs. The day-to-day costs of running the school—the water, the electricity, the maintenance and all those other costs—are met by parents' fees. The next point I want to make is that where a child in a government school walks into a new school, that has been totally funded by the taxpayers of Australia, of whom many are the parents of Catholic children—remembering that 30 per cent of children in Catholic schools are not Catholic. That government school has been fully funded by government, whether it is state or federal. By contrast, 95 per cent of the capital cost of building Catholic schools in this country is paid by the parents. So Senator Hinch, if that is what you did say, be very pleased that Catholic parents and independent parents are paying up, because for everyone who is in a Catholic or independent school that capital cost of building the school, that extra 10 per cent of the cost of running the school and educating the child has been met by that Catholic or independent parent on top of paying their taxes.
When you think about the passion of it, think that in some of those schools, like St Benedict's in Applecross, where my children went to school, it is only last year that the last of the classrooms that were built by the parents in the 1950s under the direction of the builder Cyril Wildy were knocked down and replaced. So when I talk about a bit of passion, I remember bottle drives as a kid in Bunbury, I remember planting the lawn on the oval at the Marist Brothers in Bunbury on Saturdays and Sundays on our hands and knees. We were not praying and we were not getting any indulgences from upstairs, but I can tell you that if we wanted an oval we planted that oval.
I want to make the point that that is how critically important all of this is. Co-responsibility supports poorer schools. You have heard these allegations that it is just a grab by the rich schools against the poor schools. In my state, under the current system weighted average every child in a Catholic school has a grading of 103, and more than 50 per cent of the funding supporting kids below the 103 comes from the kids above the 103.
Just a couple of small things. Rent in Karratha went to $2,400 a week. When it came to the state school, the state government just paid for the extra rent in rent support. When it came to the Catholic school, how do you keep the teachers in the schools in Karratha?
The co-responsibility fund pays for it. At Roxby, in South Australia, they had to provide a home for the principal. It cost them a million bucks. Could they go back to government and say, 'Look, it has cost us a million'? In South Australia, when electricity and water costs went up in recent times, the state schools were supported; but the Catholic education system pays for the middle. In the north of WA, in the Kimberley; in the Northern Territory, as Senator McCarthy would know; and in North Queensland there are many small communities where the only school is the Catholic school. If you close it, there is not a school. And who has the challenge then?
In Australia, choice has always been an element. One of the fears that I have—and it has been put to me—is that the very essence of the Catholic school system in this country has been the education of poor children. Mary MacKillop started in Penola. The Mercys came to Fremantle in January 1846, having come out of Tipperary in Ireland to the stinking January heat. Within 20 days, they were not only opening a school for girls but the first ever school for Aboriginal girls in Australia. That is the quality of the Catholic education system and that has to be preserved.
The last point I want to make before I go to specific questions is about transparency. We in this place, as lawmakers, need to know that every last dollar of taxpayers' money has been accounted for and has been spent on the purpose for which, quite rightly, the taxpayers of Australia have given it. I just want to make the point very strongly that that is an element that must continue.
I now want to come to the concept of the system weighted average. As you all know, I have jumped up and down publicly about it and said please continue it for at least one year. I will tell you why. I will quote a letter from Dr Peter Tannock. He was head of Catholic Education originally and then he became Vice-Chancellor at Notre Dame. He is a very active member of Gonski. In a letter just the other day he said: 'The government should ameliorate the concerns of Catholic systems and should reinstate the longstanding mechanism for Commonwealth funding of Catholic and other non-government systems—for example, Lutherans—and it should be based on the enrolment weighted average of all schools.' He refers to a recommendation at page 171 of the original Gonski report. He goes on to say: 'This funding mechanism was strongly and unanimously endorsed by Gonski'—and that should make it very acceptable. I understand that Professor Farish was asked to examine and create what was supposedly to be the new SES model—and even Farish has said it is not working. The Grattan Institute, as has been said earlier this evening, has also come out and said the same thing. That is the reason why I have pushed very hard for there to be a pause, for there to be a continuation of the system weighted average for a 12-month period, including an examination of the funding for students with disabilities—because that is a real area of concern right across the board, as the minister well knows. And, during that time, maybe it might be led by Professor Farish.
I can imagine a situation where that review is chaired by the person who was the original architect of the new SES model. It would have tax office people on board. It would have census and statistics people—a representation of the systems—so they can have a good long hard look based on capacity to pay. That might be through the tax file numbers of the parents in the schools. I am sure that, with modern technology, we can crossmatch those. The simple fact is that, if you do not earn $18,800 a year, you do not pay tax. So the possibility of examining it through tax returns might or might not work. We need something or other that can be examined. Minister, can you point to what you have in mind to allow the continuation of the system weighted average? What do you have in mind in terms of how that review will be undertaken? Can I have an undertaking from you that disability will be included in that particular process?
Naturally, at the conclusion of that review, since I will not be here, I want to be absolutely sure that my colleagues across the chamber will be able to know what it was that the review panel determined. If, indeed, it is one of your requirements that consensus be reached, well, send them all on a long drive to Darwin, because by the time they get there they will as sure as hell have consensus. I really do want to know what mechanism will be in place, whatever the determination the review panel make and whatever the recommendation they make to you as the minister, and how that will find its way into our processes. Of course, as has been quite rightly asked by Senator Collins: is there some indicative costing, additional costing, that you believe would be required to give effect to this so that there can be a level of satisfaction across systems, it is understood and we can go forward into 2018.
We cannot leave it any longer, colleagues. There are those who say, 'Can we put this off until August or September?' However, those of us who have been on school boards know that by now you have normally done your budgets. You know what your enrolments are for next year. You know whether there are going to be more teachers or fewer teachers. You are trying to work out what the fee structures are going to be. June is late enough. For those of us who know the system, who know how school boards run, know that to delay the determination until August or September is far too late for 2018. Anybody associated with budgeting is screaming now. They are the questions I want answered. The minister knows that, if I can be satisfied, of course I can support it.
Senator Back, thank you for your contribution. I would just at the outset reflect on a couple of the broader comments that you made about the value of nongovernment education—the Catholic systemic schools, other school systems outside of the government systems, as well as standalone independent schools across Australia. I note particularly your comments that rightly acknowledge the hard work of parents and families who choose to invest in their child's education. You rightly acknowledge that such parents do make savings to other taxpayers in choosing to do so, particularly savings to states and territories in terms of costs that they would otherwise wear were those students to be in the equally high quality government school systems around the country.
I also acknowledge that in those nongovernment schools, as in government schools, we see principals, teachers and the entire school community work hard in voluntary ways to raise additional funds to provide additional resources, as well as, of course, the resources that are provided in terms of the fees. I acknowledge the fact that many in the Catholic education system and in the other school systems work in ways to try to provide access to their schools for people who may not be able to pay all of the fees or indeed any of the fees in some instances and that they do so in a sense in a spirit of charity and access. In a handful of locations around the country, they do so where there may not even be a government school option readily available to those students. It is that choice and that right of people to choose an education, including a faith based education, for their children that is at the heart of Commonwealth funding of education historically. It is that choice that we seek to ensure continues into the future under the type of school funding models that are available.
An important element of that over time has been especially the work undertaken in the Howard era, building on years of increased involvement of the Commonwealth government in school funding, particularly nongovernment school funding, to ensure that there was some methodology that allowed for governments of the day to provide greater support to nongovernment schools in communities of lower economic means or capabilities in their capacity to contribute to those school fees. This was essentially ensure there were some means that empowered school choice around Australia for those who may not be able to afford significant fees in their schools. I note that well before that there were many schools who, thanks to charitable contributions, church contributions, parish contributions and other ways, were already making such offerings available at little or no fee, regardless of government funding. But, as time has gone by, government funding has become more and more important, and it is important that the funding model we have does ensure that the greatest level of support goes to those school communities and to families in those school communities who are otherwise the least able to access that choice, relative to those who might be better off.
Senator Back, I want to thank you for that contribution and for your consistent advocacy in terms of school choice. Indeed, as this is your second-last sitting day—it would certainly be, technically, your second last sitting day, even if we are here beyond Thursday!—I acknowledge that that is not just a contribution you have made in the Senate but, as you rightly acknowledged, it is a contribution you have made in other ways through voluntary undertakings, like so many parents and community workers do as volunteers on school boards and on school authorities in roles that help to make schools work.
Senator Back, in this debate you have engaged with me and you have done so advocating for your constituents and others with whom you are engaged who have concerns about some elements of the funding model, and you have made quite reasonable requests in doing so. As you identified in your contribution then, funding for the system weighted average that applies currently and that is proposed to be removed under the legislation before the chamber should continue next year while the review of the SES methodology, the socioeconomic status methodology, is undertaken.
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
Where is the amendment for the review, Senator?
No, the amendment to remove the system weighted average.
Senator Collins!
We will come to it, Senator Collins. So I am pleased to confirm, Senator Back, that the government have made a determination that, using section 69A of the Australian Education Act, we would provide for additional funding equivalent to the system weighted average determination for all relevant school systems across Australia. I emphasise 'relevant' because it is important to highlight that this is not just a matter relevant to Catholic education systems; it also applies to a number of other, generally smaller education systems around Australia.
The fiscal impact of that for the first calendar year is estimated to be $46.5 million, of which some $38.2 million would be estimated to be paid to each of the eight state and territory Catholic Education Commissions across Australia, and some $8.3 million would be paid to the different non-government education systems that are not in the Catholic system, over the next 12 months.
Senator Back, that funding is applying the same system averaging methodology—in terms of the averaging-out of scores—as is currently the case. They are of course estimates. Should there be more student enrolments or other variations in that sense, then they would be adjusted accordingly.
In addition to that commitment to provide that funding certainty, we are committing to a review of the SES methodology and we are committing to establishing a permanent vehicle by which such enhancements and improvements to the school funding model could take place. I refer the Senate to proposed amendment (7) on sheet GX817, which deals with establishing a National School Resourcing Board.
I emphasise that that board will require representation and membership from the states and territories, from the representative body for Catholic systemic schools and from the representative body for independent schools, ensuring that all relevant parties will be at the table in terms of the board's operation and work. It will be tasked with conducting reviews periodically, and the government intends that the very first review that it be tasked with is a review in relation to the SES measure and the parental-capacity-to-contribute settings for non-government schools. This will allow for independent analysis of the suitability of the current arrangements and ensure that the concerns raised by non-government schools, including Catholic education system authorities, about the SES measure are fully and properly examined. Our intention is that this review will take place and be completed before the middle of next year. In doing so, that will of course then provide recommendations that the government's intention will be to act upon, noting, of course, any particular budgetary circumstances that need to be addressed in that regard.
I highlight to the Senate—and hopefully we would have moved this amendment by now—that there are particular measures in terms of the structure of this that will ensure that there must be consultation around the terms of reference for such a review with all of the relevant stakeholders in terms of ensuring that the findings of such a review will be made public; tabled in this place; provided to relevant stakeholders, including, of course, the different representative bodies in the states and territories; and, once having undertaken the SES and capacity-to-contribute review, we would anticipate and commit that the next body of work that this review would look at would be in relation to student-with-disability loadings to ensure the appropriate application of those loadings.
Senator Back, thank you again for your constructive engagement and advocacy in this regard. It helps to ensure that as we work through these processes we get even better outcomes. As I have highlighted time and time again in this place, the funding proposals that the government has put forward do ensure growth in funding in a range of different ways, and I note that your advocacy in this matter has not been about the quantum of funding so much as the co-responsibility arrangements that you highlight across systems and the way in which they work. I commend you for the way in which you put those arguments forward and worked with us in this way.
I have said to Senator Back that I will explain how the concern is not so much what Simon says but what Simon does not say. You might recall—I am not really being glib here—that it was the state ministers who came out of their last ministerial council saying it was 'all Simon says'. In other words, the outcome of any Commonwealth-state partnership in this area has deteriorated so badly that he would front one ministerial council with just two case studies. That is the only prior consideration or airing of this sole Commonwealth funding approach, and the only other area we have been directed to as informing this shift has been the cabinet consideration. He could not even draw the Grattan Institute into an informed discussion about why we should move to 80-20. There has been no informed discussion about moving to 80-20. As I said, that is the issue about public schools that I have been accused of not being concerned about, so let's leave that on the table.
Senator Back, on the issues that you are concerned about: it is what Simon does not say which highlights—
Senator, there has been quite a bit of latitude, but you will refer to the minister in the appropriate fashion.
Certainly I will. Thank you. It is what the minister does not say that is the issue here. Senator Back, I refer you to page 11 of the bill. Page 11 of the bill sets out the changes to the capacity-to-contribute arrangements under the SES. This is the area that the government amendments do not address. This is the area where the minister is deliberately refusing to pause, and the reason that the minister is deliberately refusing to pause—and we have heard different arguments about that, and I am sure we will get to the detail of those, because he convinced with very weak arguments all sorts of people that the justification for the existing capacity-to-contribute arrangement was tenuous. But it is connected to the SES arrangements and for him to suggest that he is pausing the arrangements under this model for systemic schools, and then not address these provisions in the bill, is simply disingenuous. Let me explain the reason, Senator Back: it is because the two factors work together.
I recall the decisions that were made under the Gillard government around how to follow the Gonski recommendations, and I want to take the Senate very carefully through that. I have done this a couple of times, but hopefully now that we are very focused on the issue I can do it again. I think you mentioned that Dr Tannock referred to page 177 of the Gonski review. I am now going to refer to a related part, which is on page 178. On that page the panel recommended that government should apply careful attention to the 'the shape of the anticipated private contribution' between two points in the model as to what level of contribution should be expected of parents. Under the Gillard government we did that. We modelled it. We looked at the sort of modelling that the minister is refusing to provide at the moment under our order for the production of documents. Under that modelling, at the time we were convinced—and we have had more recent data now from the ABS that highlights this point—that parents who have children at primary school level have a different capacity to contribute than, in general terms, parents who have children at secondary school level. The more recent ABS data reinforces that point. It is well-known that families with younger children are more likely to have one full-time income earner and then maybe only a part-time income earner, or not a second income earner, within their households. That is reflected in the ABS family income figures provided to me by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. That is why we, under the Gillard government, framed the curve as it currently is in the act for primary school students.
We are also mindful of the fact that the highest proportion of students in non-government schools are in local parish Catholic primary schools. Unlike the independent sector, there is usually a smaller proportion of students at primary level and a much higher proportion of students at secondary level, and they can balance out that distribution more effectively. In Catholic schools they are commonly local parish Catholic primary schools—the ones you would be familiar with. Their argument was that not only does the SES model not measure very well the nature of our student population and their families but also their capacity to contribute is different when you have primary school aged students as opposed to secondary school aged students.
On that basis and on the basis of advice we received at the time, we structured the curve in a way that reflected that and took on board the Gonski review recommendation that we needed to do this in a fashion that would not compromise the delivery of the different types of non-government schools. One of those different types of non-government schools is the low-fee systemic Catholic primary school. I do not focus just on Catholics here, because that is why the Anglicans are in systems and the Lutherans are in systems. They run some very similar low-fee accessible schools. What the minister has yet to circulate—I would like to be wrong here but I have not yet been able to find this—is an amendment that withdraws the changes that I directed you to in the current bill, or at least provides a 12-month moratorium on those provisions. If they do not do that they are not providing the full-monty moratorium. Let me highlight why that is definitely the case, now that the minister has provided us with the anticipated figures. Because, Senator Back, the anticipated figures he has provided for this next financial year are nowhere near the anticipated figures we addressed in government. It is five-odd years since 2013, but my recollection is that the system weighted average factor at that point in time was worth roughly $60 million. So there is only one way the minister could be presenting the figure that he gave us today—the $46.5 million figure—and that is if he has done it on the basis of his changes to the parental capacity to contribute. That is the only way he could come up with that estimate.
So there are two issues, Senator Back, that relate to assurances that you may have been given. The first of those is that it is not a full pause unless the government removes the changes to the capacity-to-contribute arrangements for non-government primary schools. If they do not remove the provisions that I have directed you to on page 11 of the bill—and we have amendments designed to do that—they are just simply not being genuine. It is a very difficult element to explain, but what people need to understand is the system weighted average factor works in partnership with the capacity-to-contribute measure. The two work together. So if the minister is only responding to one element of it, that is why you are getting figures that are well below the figures we addressed when we were in government.
But what is more concerning is that the minister is being disingenuous in how he is addressing this. These are issues that have been taken to the minister time and time again, so for him to be here now deliberately skimming over that factor is disrespectful. It is disrespectful to you. I am more than happy for him to be disrespectful to me, and almost everybody in this debate has been. I have pretty thick skin; it does not bother me in the slightest. But, Senator Back, for you, for the minister to not cover that issue is disrespectful.
A genuine pause would involve at least a pause on the operation of the provisions on page 11 of the bill. Find me the amendment that the government is moving that does that—prove me wrong, please, but I cannot find it, and my advisers have not been able to find it in the limited time that we have had—or the minister can make an assurance that he will put it in. But if he does not then I suggest to you, Senator Back, and to other senators who are concerned about these issues, to support our amendment that does, because any suggestion that there is a moratorium on these issues, without dealing with the unilateral changes to capacity to contribute that this minister has put into this bill, is not adequate.
The complexity of all of this is what has allowed this minister to maintain the charade. Had this minister had his way we would have trotted in here this evening and we would have started systematically moving through his amendments, and he might have conned the Senate as a whole as well. But fortunately our parliamentary processes ensure—and you, Senator Back, know full well why—he cannot just do that. I think, Senator Back, the question you should be asking the minister is: what is he going to do about these capacity-to-contribute changes that he has unilaterally introduced into the bill?
As I have said to you, I have seen submissions from independent schools, and they were the only ones that you could glean any policy rationale from in relation to these changes. When we challenged people like Christians Schools to please tell us, 'Where has this come from? Why has the curve been adjusted this way? Do you really understand the impact?' the answers we got were quite alarming. Catholic Education has been accused of scaremongering. The truth is Catholic Education is really probably the only organisation that has the organisational capacity to use the funding estimator tool and understand fairly easily and fairly quickly what the implications are. When they spoke to the Lutherans, they put in a submission to the legislation committee inquiry, and said, 'No, we don't like this—don't do this to us.' Then we had the Anglicans, and it was much the same. Indeed, you will note that Senator Birmingham has not responded to my question about the Anglican system that sought to be recognised as a system almost 12 months ago, that he failed to act upon. Will they, at least, get some access to this partial Monty? Or will they get nothing? That is the problem here.
So it is going to be a long night, because the assurances that Senator Birmingham might be giving you now will be challenged to time and time again. But unless he stalls his capacity to contribute changes, there is no more moratorium. The figures are as represented, for instance, in my local parish school. I was a bit reluctant to talk about it until I received a letter from one of my fellow parishioners. It is probably about the first time as a senator that I have ever been able to respond almost immediately and say, 'Actually, there are a few other people you should be lobbying rather than me.' Consider the impact on that school, unless this capacity to contribute payment or, as described in the Gonski review report, the anticipated private contribution, because that is what this minister is unilaterally changing—the anticipated private contribution.
He has said wonderful things about Catholic Education here tonight, but reflect on what he has said at other times. Catholic Education was supposedly scaremongering, yet his colleagues, like Senator Bridget McKenzie—if you look at her press release from 2013, she was way more out there in terms of suggesting that there would be fee rises within Catholic schools. No—Catholic Education has looked at these changes to the anticipated private contribution—page 11 in the bill—and they have been able to tell us quite clearly what will be anticipated from parents in Catholic schools from 2018, with no transition. There is no six or 10 years working these changes through the system—this cliff happens in 2018. Unless this is removed from the bill, there is no moratorium.
Just quickly, because Senator Collins has raised it a couple of times, I have managed to get some information in relation to what I think is the Anglican school system that she has queried about. My understanding is that on 8 February the system contacted the department seeking to have consideration of it for system weighted average application. They were advised two days later that the first step for that to apply was that there had to be a collection of the addresses of each child in the system. The 2017 collection was to take place over the period up to 31 May—there has been an extension provided in relation to provision of such addresses—but that once such addresses were collected in the system it would be possible to calculate a system weighted average. Whilst the department is not aware of that system having been in contact with the department again, if it is their wish with the updated data that they be treated in the same way as any of the others that have been included or naturally captured in the commitments I have given to Senator Back tonight, I would be happy for that to occur.
There is just one problem with that answer, which is that there are provisions in the bill that remove the minister's discretion to treat a system that way. So unless his amendments deal with removing that discretion, there can be no new systems. This is why I raised this case. It may have not have been 12 months—as I said, I am quite prepared to accept that people who convey this information to us might not have their information completely accurate. But thank you—we now know, even though I have asked this question before, and we have not received comprehensive answers to the questions that were asked in the legislation inquiry. But I now know that there is an Anglican system—as I said, I cannot recall which state it was, so we still do not know that. There are a number of Anglican systems in other states that already have that status. But there is one system sitting out there, outstanding. They commenced the process on 5 February. This bill removes the minister's capacity to treat them in such a fashion, unless we see another amendment. And so they cannot be treated in the same way, Minister, unless this suggested $50 million transition fund is some discretionary ministerial bucket. If so, you have yet to describe to us the circumstances and conditions under which people would have access to it.
If the system in question meets all of the other, usual preconditions for system status—as we would anticipate—and the address collection has occurred, then the same provisions for prescribed circumstances payments under section 69A of the act would allow us to be able to ensure that they were treated in the same equitable terms as any of those others that were identified in the response to Senator Back.
More than 40 per cent of students in Northern Territory schools are Indigenous. Most of them are more likely to attend government schools, and many of these students are high-needs students, often because of issues of disadvantage and poverty. Studies have found nearly 90 per cent of Indigenous students in Northern Territory schools suffer from hearing loss, which affects language development and impacts on learning. So imagine sitting at school as a student with hearing loss and English as your second language. Sadly, that is the case for almost half of our Indigenous students at any given time, yet we wonder why these children are not learning. As a government, you wonder why the gap is not closing, Minister, but how do you learn when you cannot hear the teacher?
Let me give you some more facts about the reality of Northern Territory schools and students. The Northern Territory has the largest proportion of children aged nought to eight years of any state or territory in Australia—14.1 per cent compared to 11.5 per cent nationally. The Territory also has the largest proportion of Indigenous children—42 per cent compared to 6 per cent nationally. Geographically, 48 per cent of all children aged nought to 12 in the Territory live in remote areas, compared to three per cent nationally, and over 37 per cent of NT government schools have a language background other than English. Very remote students live in relatively small, highly dispersed communities and homelands, where families choose to remain living close to country and culture. In these areas there is limited infrastructure, little or no economy and populations that do not use English as a first language.
Minister, I have a number of questions in relation to the Northern Territory that I would like to put to you. Just before I do, I also have a letter here that I wish to table. It is a letter from the education minister, Eva Lawler, who is urging the Senate to delay this bill to allow time to negotiate arrangements that are more favourable to Australia's most disadvantaged and vulnerable children. Essentially, the key message is that jurisdictions have different capacities to fund their schools, and, while it does not seem like much, it is important to the Northern Territory. So I seek leave to table this document.
Is leave granted?
Chair, for Senator McCarthy, the normal convention with tabling a document would be to share it with the parties before tabling. However, on this occasion, given the description Senator McCarthy has given, I am happy to grant leave.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Minister. Leave is granted.
Minister, I have a number of questions that I would like to put to you in terms of the Northern Territory. Although the Commonwealth has announced additional funding from 2018 to 2021 to assist Northern Territory government schools' transition to the new school-funding arrangements, the Territory's educational landscape and complexities will continue beyond 2021, where additional funding will be needed to assist students with the highest needs. Minister, how will this bill allow for review and continuous improvement in the funding model to consider changes in evidence and context?
I do refer Senator McCarthy in particular to proposed amendment (7) on sheet GX167 as it does provide a very clear mechanism for states and territories as well as other sectors to be represented in a national school resourcing body, and it will have particular tasks in relation to continued improvement of the funding model.
Minister, under proposed section 22A of the bill it states that states and territories will be required to at least maintain their current level of per-student funding in accordance with the regulations detailing how funding must be maintained for both government and non-government schools. It is understood the proposed penalty for failure to meet maintenance-of-effort requirements will result in a further reduction of Commonwealth funding being applied to public schools. Is this the case?
There is no reduction to public schools, but under the government's proposals there is indeed a provision contained to ensure that, as the Commonwealth provides additional funding, the states and territories do not simply take out their funding, leaving no net improvement. That is intended as an accountability mechanism to ensure the states and territories do that, noting the reality that the Commonwealth does not directly fund government schools in the Northern Territory or anywhere else around the country. So this is a provision designed to ensure that we do not give with one hand and see any state or territory government take and pocket it with the other but that actually additional funding equates to real additionality in schools.
Minister, I am just trying to understand about the proposed penalty for failure to meet maintenance-of-effort requirements. Can you expand a bit more on that?
The intention is that the one lever we have over states and territories is the funding we provide to those states and territories. So if a state or territory is not going to provide a full pass-through of Commonwealth funding to increase contributions to their state and territory schools then the Commonwealth would have a power in the mechanism to be able to withhold some future level of funding from that state or territory in the hope that that would incentivise the state or territory to ensure that extra funding means extra funding rather than extra Commonwealth funding simply being a cost-shift from the state onto the Commonwealth.
Minister, the Commonwealth will also transition a calculation of loadings for students with a disability to be based on the nationally consistent collection of data, the NCCD, on school students with disability. This data collection is in its infancy and inconsistencies between jurisdictions are a key concern. Does the bill allow for improvements to data accuracy prior to linking adjustment classifications to funding?
There is a joint working group that brings together the states and territories, the non-government schooling sector and the Commonwealth for continued enhancement of data accuracy and to work with all of those in collection authorities to ensure improvements in that data accuracy.
As I think I told the Senate yesterday, the ratings are essentially demand driven. So if the collection of data in the Northern Territory were to validly result in more students with disability being identified and/or students with disability being identified at higher levels of adjustment need that would result in additional funding flowing. So our determination is that there will be continued work done across the states and territories around data accuracy. That is why we have commissioned over a period of time an independent report into the collections that have been taking place over recent years. That is informing continuous enhancements in the moderation of data activity to give confidence around the NCCD.
Minister, you said today in question time that funding for the Northern Territory was about growth in the Northern Territory, and your figures were that it would be going up from $191 million to $261 million, equating to around $8,362 per student and $11,370 per student. The concern that the Northern Territory has is that the funding proposal will see federal funds cut to 20 per cent of the school resourcing standard, and currently Northern Territory government schools received 23 per cent of the school resourcing standard. How did you arrive at those figures?
The government have been fairly clear that, whilst the 20 per cent figure will be applied to all of the other states and territories, we note the unique circumstances of the Northern Territory and therefore have provided for some additional funding in the Territory to ensure that there is a continued level of growth in funding and support for Northern Territory schools, which is included in the figures that I quoted in question time today.
Minister, I am just trying to understand, though, what that means for remote schools—for example, Mutitjulu, Yuendemu, Maningrida, Yirrkala and Borroloola. Can you explain just what it will look like for those particular schools?
I will explain it in a couple of ways. One, as I highlighted before, is that what it looks like for those schools will be a matter for the Northern Territory minister, whose letter you tabled before, as she has full autonomy—or the Territory government have full autonomy in terms of how they distribute the funding across Territory schools. However, the quantum of funding that the Territory government receives is well and truly, as I highlighted in response to your earlier questions, the highest in the nation on a per-student basis, and that is because of the particular need there.
Of course, a loadings model like this one, which provides additional loadings for Indigenous students, students of socio-educational disadvantage, for students from learning backgrounds other than English and for students with a disability, does provide, ultimately, the largest level of funding per student in the Northern Territory, rightly reflecting the very particular needs of the Territory.
So, in terms of the remote schools that you identified, while I do not offhand know the circumstances of each of those schools, I imagine that, in terms of the funding that the Territory government receives, each of them would be attracting significant levels of Indigenous student loadings; significant levels of loadings in relation to socio-educational disadvantage; significant loadings, potentially, in relation to language backgrounds other than English; possibly, significant loadings in relation to student with disability; certainly, in terms of them being remote schools, the regional schools loading; and probably the small schools loadings as well.
The Turnbull government puts significant resources into the Remote School Attendance Strategy. On the one hand, there have been significant funds going into that—you are putting resources into trying to get kids to schools in remote communities—but, on the other hand, there is an understanding about cuts to schools, like local teachers, Indigenous education workers and investment in resources. There is a major imbalance here. Can you respond to that?
Certainly, Senator. Just to highlight support for Indigenous students, I draw your attention to the fact sheets that the department has published in this regard. Loading support for Indigenous students is estimated to increase from around $962.6 million that was provided over the previous four years—2014 to 2017 inclusive—and increasing to some $1.4 billion in loading support over the period 2018 to 2021. That is an increase in support of around 46 per cent. A significant level of those loadings, certainly on a per population basis or ratio, is the highest level in the country and naturally goes to the Northern Territory.
This is where it is just not adding up, Minister, because, on the one hand, you are giving extraordinary figures in terms of the investment, yet the outcome for students and the resourcing do not reflect that. The letter from the education minister in the Northern Territory also reflects those concerns.
There are extraordinary sums of money involved in school education. We estimate that around 213,504 students in 2018 will identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander students and therefore will attract a loading, depending on the intensity of the Indigenous population in the schools that they attend. Because of the scale of the number of students and schools, they end up being very significant numbers. But, importantly, there is also clear growth and clear application of needs based principles. As identified before, I gave the figures in relation to the growth rates across Northern Territory government schools that are estimated to shift from $191 million in funding in 2017 up to $261 million by 2027, as well as highlighting in particular the additional funding and budget resourcing that the government is committed to, in essence, outside of the model to provide some $35.6 million in the Northern Territory. This specifically recognises the unique circumstances there, including the uniquely high starting share of the schooling resource standard.
Minister, you refer to the 'unique circumstances', and I did mention earlier issues like hearing problems, which contribute quite significantly to some of the learning difficulties in terms of not only health but also language. Many different languages are spoken across the Northern Territory. Can you point me to where in your figures there is a focus on—I am not sure whether it is in the disability area—providing support so that there is a guarantee that there is support for students with those sorts of learning difficulties?
Senator, as I went through some of the areas of loadings that are applicable before, language backgrounds other than English are one area of those loadings, which, as I indicated, may be applicable in certain remote communities in the Northern Territory, in addition to all of the other loadings which we spoke about. I would also highlight in relation to the first question you asked in the string of questions about the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on School Students with Disability that the intent behind that is to provide for appropriate levels of support that genuinely reflect the adjustment assistance that students need. Obviously, issues in relation to hearing that may have impaired a student's learning over a period of time are real challenges. In terms of identification of hearing loss and hearing difficulties, I am advised that the Department of Health funds and supports a number of programs in terms of hearing checks. They provide valuable assistance towards identifying students who may be able to have hearing problems rectified, as well as identifying students who may attract additional support under the students with disability funding.
The Commonwealth government had provided an earlier commitment to fund all states and territories alike from 2018 onwards. Is that statement correct?
I am not sure quite what Senator Pratt is referencing, but certainly the commitment the Turnbull government has given through the model that is before the parliament is indeed to provide additional support to all states and territories, but to ensure it is done consistently, ensuring that the state of Western Australia, where Senator Pratt hails from, does ultimately receive equal levels of federal support for its students based on their need, as does every other state or territory, unlike anything that would ever be achieved for the state of Western Australia were existing provisions left to continue.
Thank you. Is it not true, however, that the Commonwealth government had provided that commitment earlier, that that commitment to fund schools equally would start from 2018?
Minister?
In other words, no. Is the statement true that you have previously made that commitment but you have deviated from the commitment because you are not applying it until the outlying years? The 2016-17 federal budget papers certainly indicated that this commitment was to take place from 2018 onwards and provided no indication of deferment funding through a long-term transition period as is before us in this legislation, so, Minister, what funding was allocated to Western Australian state schools in the 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 years in the 2016-17 federal budget?
I can inform Senator Pratt that, whilst I do not have it in front of me, I am very much aware that the budget papers last year made it very clear that the proposed distribution of funding, that I am pretty sure no other Labor senator will come in here and suggest should have been adhered to, was indicative only and was to be the subject of the development of future funding models. I challenge Senator Pratt to find anywhere where I quoted those figures, or used those figures, or where the government promoted those figures anywhere, without the very strong caveats that were contained in those budget papers. But I do emphasise to Senator Pratt that Western Australian government schools do, under the proposal that the Turnbull government has brought forward, receive far and away the greatest growth for government schools anywhere in the country—some 7.3 per cent per student growth over the next four years under the government's proposal; growth that is well in excess of anywhere else and reflective of the fact that Western Australia got such a raw deal under the Gillard government proposals and that we are committed over the transition period proposed in our bill to catch Western Australia up to all other jurisdictions.
How are state governments supposed to manage their budgets if you make up figures in your budget papers that are blatantly untrue for 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, the three following years? How are they supposed to function in any meaningful way whatsoever if you cannot or refuse to give them reliable figures on which to manage their education budgets?
Senator Pratt has an outstanding opportunity tonight to fix the concerns she just expressed by locking into legislation the funding formulas for state and territory governments into the future in a far more certain way than the different deals done by the Gillard government did.
So what is Western Australia supposed to do with the $400 million deficit that you have left them in their education budget over the next three years?
Far from a deficit for Western Australia, as I indicated before, the growth rates are in fact the strongest in the country. As I have done for a number of jurisdictions, I will highlight for Western Australia that in 2017 WA government schools will receive some $616 million of Commonwealth funding. That will increase to an estimated $677 million in 2018 and, as the model continues to the 2027 endpoint, some $1.489 billion being paid to the Western Australian government to support Western Australia government schools—a more than doubling of existing funding in relation to WA.
Why are you not using the figures from your own budget papers as the baseline for comparing one year's funding to the next?
It is because of a couple of things. The baseline is, of course, what they actually receive in 2017, and it grows each and every year into the future. As I indicated in my first question, the footnotes were very clear in last year's budget papers that, as state allocations for some programs were yet to be determined, relevant payments are not included in state totals. Consequently, total payments may not equal the sum of state totals. They further went on that it includes financial assistance grants for local government in some instances and then noted that state allocations from the 2018 school year onwards are indicative only and final allocations are subject to formal negotiations with Commonwealth, the states and the non-government schools sector. Of course, in those final allocations for 2018 onwards we propose to remove all ambiguity or uncertainty and to actually ensure that they are locked into legislation under a far fairer arrangement than the deal that absolutely dudded Western Australia that the Gillard government put on the table.
Is it not true that, as previously indicated in the budget papers, there was $744 million for Western Australian schools in 2017-18, $884 million in 2018-19 and $928 million in 2019-20, which represents some $400 million more than what you are proposing in the legislation before us?
As I indicated before, the indicative figures in last year's budget were clearly specific as indicative only. Were, of course, I to accept the premise of your question, that would make a mockery of the claims each and every one of your colleagues seem to make. They do not want to use last year's budget as the basis upon which to acknowledge there is growth everywhere else across the country. Indeed, it seems as if you want to pick one set of figures completely different from the set of figures all of your other colleagues want to use. I highlight here that Western Australia is the biggest winner out of these reforms with the fastest rate of growth. Unlike anything that would ever have been achieved under the Gillard government deals, we are guaranteeing that Western Australia will receive a fair share of funding for its school students rather than being penalised for the fact that Western Australian governments have invested more in their schools than some in other states do.
Are not state governments supposed to be able to rely on the government's own forward estimates for managing their education budgets?
I have already answered that.
I, too, want to ask some questions regarding WA. Before I do that, Minister, we know that you have been in negotiations with some of the crossbenchers in here and, indeed, before that with the Australian Greens. I note that today Senator Hanson made comments about children with disability in a speech that she made during the education bill debate, stating that, if there are too many children with disability in a classroom, it affects the learning of children without disability—according to Senator Hanson—and that these children should go into a special classroom. Was that raised at any point by the Pauline Hanson's One Nation team as a negotiating point with government to get their support for the bill?
No. And, of course, the point of having the students-with-disability loading applied on differentiated levels according to the nationally consistent collection of data for students with disability is to ensure that there is the type of support available to schools in the classrooms that reflects the type of adjustment assistance relevant students need to ensure their participation in classroom education and in school education consistent with the national standards for disabilities and particularly their application in relation to school education.
Sorry, Minister, I was not quite clear then. My specific question was: did Pauline Hanson's One Nation—
The answer is no.
No, they did not raise it in the negotiations with you?
The answer is no.
Okay. I want to explore some further questions. What direct negotiations have you or your department had in the last 48 hours with the WA government in relation to the funding that they might receive for their schools?
We are not aware of any particular representations from the WA government in the last 48 hours.
Sorry, Minister, perhaps I was not clear. I asked what negotiations you may have had with the WA government. Have you directly contacted the WA government or indeed have officers from your department contacted either the WA Department of Education or Minister Ellery's office in relation to funding on offer to WA?
In relation to your questions, no, and, not that I am aware, though of course I have met with Minister Ellery both at the ministerial council and privately since the government's policy was released.
Minister Ellery was on radio today saying that from the date of the original bill there now appears to be increased money on offer, but unfortunately the minister had to refer to comments that were made in here by Senator Xenophon. From the original bill to today, what has changed for WA?
I will deal with that when we get to that amendment. There are amendments to deal with these things if we can ever get to them.
I am talking about specific funding. What is the difference in funding to the WA government from the original bill to today?
I will deal with that when we get to the amendments.
I have one short question I hope the minister might be able to give me a decent answer to. One of the things that concerns the local community is how trustworthy the information is that the government has provided. As a former teacher, I have to say that people's interaction with the My School website has led to a degree of trust in the veracity of information they can access from a government about the facts relating to their school. So I think the government's decision on the back of that sense of trust that people have in the digital connection they have with governments about their school was actually an asset on which the government drew when they were trying to convince the Australian public that they were actually going to be doing something decent in terms of education.
But, in the context of all of that, there was the establishment of the school funding estimator. With discussion around the bill, and certainly at estimates, there were very many questions about the veracity of the detail embedded in that funding estimator. Parents right across the country and across New South Wales are communicating with me and they are very concerned about how much they can trust that. For some of them, their initial concern was simply because, like me, they really do not trust too much what this government says on education, particularly after they were told they were going to get dollar-for-dollar funding that would match Labor's commitment. They want to know how now they should interpret the school funding estimator given that the Secretary of the New South Wales Department of Education, Mark Scott, has said that the information on the federal government's school funding estimator is not to be relied upon. And that is a direction that has been given to New South Wales school principals with regard to school funding. So, Minister, with regard to what has now been declared by a state entity, the government sector in New South Wales, through Mr Mark Scott, what is your intention with regard to directions about removing incorrect factual data from the school funding estimator website?
The senator asked a couple of questions relating to the My School website and the school funding estimator. Of course, the My School website provides details of the Commonwealth funding that a state or territory system authority, Catholic school system authority or other school system says it provides to a particular school. It is not necessarily an accurate reflection on the My School website what the federal funding provided to that system authority for the school is; it is simply a reflection of what the system authority, out of their pooled grant of federal funding, provides to that school. I note that historical data on My School also includes other sources of federal funding outside of the direct recurrent school funding arrangements. In relation to the estimator, it has sought to provide the nominal allocation of funding that goes from the Commonwealth to a school or a school system. I note that, in relation to a school system such as the New South Wales government system, the school funding estimator does make clear that, if your school is part of a system—Commonwealth funding is paid to the system as a block—the system will determine the amount your school receives. That, of course, has been the case historically and it continues to be the case.
Just to be clear for people who thought they did not have to worry about the funding of their schools and education for their children, for people who have taken the government at its word and certainly accepted the fanfare on the day of the announcement—'the school funding estimator is going to tell you how great life is for your child'—the reality is that it is a nominal allocation. That means it is not an accurate number, it is nominal; it is something like it, but it is not the accurate number.
Minister, if your school is part of the Catholic school system, which is 25 per cent of the schools across the country—and all of the government schools as part of government systems—because parents of those school systems are looking up materials, there is not only a nominal allocation; the other variable is that the other numbers there do not actually reflect what is happening with the system through which the money is coming. Basically, they are very, very inaccurate numbers. Is that correct, Minister? They are not to be relied on?
I do not accept that statement or assessment. I do note that all of these matters were covered fairly extensively at Senate estimates and, I suspect, in the Senate inquiry. I again refer the senator to my previous answer: if you accurately want to know how much federal government funding a school system provided to their individual schools, then ultimately you need to refer to the My School website when that data is finally reported.
Minister, will you take any action to remove the incorrect data that is misrepresenting to parents—and accepted, apparently, by you—about what is happening in their schools? Will you give any direction for the data to be removed? Will you give any direction, through the media, to help parents understand that the figures that you are directing them to on the school funding estimator are, in fact, very misleading?
I have answered those questions before.
I want to go to some further concerns of the Western Australian state government. I will quote from their submission to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee. The Western Australian government noted that, through this legislation, the Commonwealth is 'seeking to strengthen the linkage between Commonwealth financial assistance and the implementation of evidence-based reforms to improve student outcomes'. As the Western Australian state government characterises it, the bill is seeking to stipulate conditions of financial assistance on the states and territories that is conditional on the implementation of national policy initiatives and that those jurisdictions maintain their 2017 levels of schools funding. Given that, why have you not provided the states the detail about how the funding will be tied to reforms, how maintenance of effort will be calculated and measured and how noncompliance will be managed?
The Turnbull government makes no apologies for wanting to ensure that record and growing levels of school funding are used in evidence-based ways to lift student outcomes and student performance. That is essential given the relative flatlining, and indeed decline, in some areas of performance across Australian schools over recent years. It is essential, particularly given that that has occurred in the context of increased funding growth, especially from Commonwealth governments into Australian school systems.
We want to make sure that, this time, in committing increased funding, that funding delivers results across Australian schools, which is why we are very pleased that David Gonski has agreed to do a further piece of work which will be undertaken over the duration of this year and which will receive evidence and opinions from educational experts around the country to identify how it is that our additional record growing levels of funding can most effectively be used to lift educational outcomes and achieve educational excellence. We look forward to states and territories working with us through that review process, signing on to reform agreements and being held accountable for the implementation of those reforms so that we actually do achieve the lift in student outcomes that that investment is set and meant to achieve.
Minister, how can you claim that there will be an evidence base to these reforms in terms of calculating and measuring maintenance of effort and the like if you have not yet provided us the details of how you are going to do that?
I just outlined how we are going to do that.
The Western Australian government has previously contended that the Commonwealth government did not provide the education council with sufficient detail to undertake a thorough impact assessment in relation to making changes to regulations that impact on its education system and schools. Although the bill states that the amendment will now say 'consult and have regard to any relevant decisions of the ministerial council', will you give state governments an assurance that the regulations on how this will be undertaken will be explicit? What is your intention with these regulations?
Perhaps Senator Pratt could refer to which clause or amendment she is referring to.
I am actually referring to the Western Australian submission to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee. They are quoting from the legislation. The government has purportedly said that you will amend the bill to state that you will now 'consult and have regard to any relevant decisions of the ministerial council'. Is that not correct?
Yes, I believe there is a provision in the bill and a commitment to consult with the ministerial council in relation to decisions or provisions that are of relevance to the ministerial council and their policies.
Can you please be more explicit in how the regulations will define how this consultation is to happen?
Senator Pratt, for your reference, you are referring to and asking questions about page 37 of the bill. Measure 175 says the minister must consult in relation to the making of regulations and have regard to the decisions of the ministerial council. Those relate to conditions of financial assistance matters as well as ongoing policy requirements and ongoing funding requirements. Indeed, the standard practice is that the minister of the day does write out to all of the jurisdictions to provide them with notice of and an opportunity to comment on or respond to proposed decisions or regulations that the minister is making.
As I understand it, the state government of Western Australia has sought assurance that the regulations themselves will be explicit on how consultation with the ministerial council is undertaken. But I think you talked about consultation about the creation of regulations, and that was not my question.
The purpose of this clause is not to set regulations about how consultation occurs but to ensure that, where regulations are being set, there is a requirement that consultation occurs. I refer the senator to page 34 of the EM, which makes clear:
This item will ensure that where proposed regulations will affect the ongoing policy or funding requirements of approved authorities for government schools, or conditions imposed under sections 22, 22A and 24 of the Act on states and territories for financial assistance received under the Act, the Minister must not only consult with the Ministerial Council, but must also have regard to decisions of the Council prior to the Governor-General making those regulations.
The consultation arrangements, in terms of how that consultation actually occurs, would remain as per past practice.
Will you consider making more explicit the role of the Education Council in the decision-making process for regulations?
The consultation arrangements would remain as per past practice, which will be that states are provided with notice and given an opportunity to provide comment in relation to regulations before they are formalised by the Governor-General.
I and other senators, and I think Greens senators, still have some general questions. To facilitate the progress of dealing with amendments it would be useful if the minister, or with the assistance of the department, were able to address a couple of questions in relation to amendment (2), which the minister has moved. How do the amounts specified in GX1672, which detail different SRS funding amounts for 2017, impact upon different groups of schools? How does it increase expenditure?
The financial impact of these measures is already part of the budget estimations, as I understand it. For clarity: these measures give effect to some of the changes the government had already announced. As I think has been explored previously, there is a slight updating in relation to the base funding amount for primary school students and secondary school students, reflecting more current data about the level of expenditure of those schools captured in the modelling who meet the educational standards for the setting of the base funding. That is what these measures seek to give effect to, as I outlined in introducing this amendment, ensuring that the commencement funding calculations accurately reflect funding in the appropriate terms for the appropriate year, indexed off the base, from when they were calculated.
Minister, what we are seeking to understand at the moment is what has been circulated from the Parliamentary Counsel in relation to this amendment. It indicates that this amendment will 'change the basis for calculating funding for certain schools under the Australian Education Act 2013, having the effect of increasing expenditure under the act'. Do the comments you have just made in relation to those calculations deal with that issue?
Indeed, the bill presented by the government does involve increasing funding under the act. The way in which that funding is calculated is why these provisions are shaped in the form of a request. They are not an area of additional funding—and there are some of those in the form of further amendments that will be dealt with—but they do relate to the additional funding already provided for in the bill in that they impact the way it is all calculated. In terms of application to certain schools, obviously the primary school base amount relates to primary schools and the secondary school base amount relates to secondary schools—and I am sure you do not need me to go through the others in terms of size loadings and so on. Yes, the language is 'certain schools' but that is only because each of the factors relates to the schools to which it is relevant.
While we are on this issue of additional funding, and picking up on the minister's earlier comments in relation to the provisions in the act under 69A, which he would use to deal with any new systems that might get access to funding for the 12-month period in relation to applying a system-weighted average, he indicated earlier that his estimate for the cost of that is $46.5 million, $38.2 million of which is for Catholic schools with the remainder presumably for independent schools. Minister, what other arrangements have you reached with respect to independent schools? I mentioned earlier—and you have not responded to the comments I made in relation to Students First—that the independent school sector said quite clearly to the legislation inquiry that they were hopeful that you would reconsider the position that you gave at Senate estimates about how that would apply into the future. My question is: what other calls will there be for those seeking accommodations that you might utilise section 69A of the act for?
I am happy to see if we can identify if there are any other particular elements under which that provision is utilised. There probably are at present, but we will have to double-check on that for the senator.
The minister, again, has not responded to my question in relation to Students First. He assured Senate estimates that that fund in the future would be applied on a proportional basis. Will that continue to be done?
Yes; according to enrolment numbers.
To follow-up on the last question that I asked, Minister, my understanding from your response is that you are not proposing to make any changes to the school funding estimator. Is that correct?
I have dealt with this.
Sorry, I just want to clarify that there is no proposal to make any changes to the school funding estimator. Is that correct, Minister?
Obviously, we will have to see what the Senate does with the legislation before us.
Does that mean you intend to use it, if you are successful in passing this bill, to provide new information that might be more accurate, Minister?
The government will consider the estimator and make sure that, if there are amendments required as a result of the passage of the bill, we consider the appropriate way to present that information using the estimator or what other means are necessary.
It is my understanding that the problem with the school funding estimator has been identified to you by a number of peak bodies. Do you recall making any commitments about corrections to the website—changes to the school funding estimator—particularly with regard to system funding?
Not that I recall, or at least not in any detail. But I am aware of some of the concerns, and they are concerns that I would be very mindful of if we were making any changes to the estimator.
I find it hard to understand how anybody at this point could trust your word. My understanding is very clear. You made a number of commitments, including to the director of schools for the Broken Bay diocese, that you would consider altering the school funding website to reflect the funding allocation by systems so as to more accurately reflect the funding realities. Have you changed your mind about that commitment that you made to the director of schools, or was it just something that you said to get out of a tricky situation and did not mean at the time?
Senator Birmingham interjecting—
Senator O'Neill.
Senator Birmingham seems to think that that is a question that is not worthy of an answer, but I want to put on the record that I am a parishioner in the Diocese of Broken Bay and know many teachers in that sector. I know that three very powerful women have taken action in the last week to come down here to Canberra—to leave their small children behind—as advocates for that sector. They have been walking the halls of the parliament, making sure that those on the government benches understand the devastation of the proposed cuts to funding and the failure to deal with the system-weighted average and capacity-to-pay measures that have been the subject of some considerable questioning from our side—still without adequate answers from the other. Those parents from the Broken Bay diocese have been here very alarmed about the impact of government decision-making on their capacity to continue to send their children to the school of their choice.
Those women describe what I think is a very common phenomenon for many Australians around the country who are right now waking up to the disaster of what this funding model that you are proposing is. It has been around just long enough for them to notice the filthy smell of what it is that you are attempting to push through the parliament under the cover of darkness. People are just figuring out that something smells really bad about this. As described to me by these wonderful advocates for 25 per cent of the school population across the country—these three women came in and said, 'We thought at first maybe it was a slight overreaction.' They went to check the facts on the school funding estimator. They actually had faith in the government to put accurate data on the website in the government's name. What a terrible mistake they made. They went to the government website that was being constructed by your department on your watch, Minister. They went and they looked. They thought they could trust those figures, but bit by bit they found out how inaccurate they were, as the systems did and as the systems have gone to you and asked you, Minister, to correct the misinformation that is on those. You have just ignored that. You have made commitments you cannot even remember, it would seem, or are going to deny. Either way, the fact is that those calculators are still incorrect, and parents who are relying on information from you have suddenly started to figure out that they simply cannot trust any of the numbers that you are producing. It is like there is an asterisk and a few more little asterisks and a few more little asterisks. If you sit there and you read all the tiny asterisks—including the ones that you forgot to put in there—you might actually somewhere approximate something near the truth. But people cannot get a straight answer. They cannot get the truth from the school funding estimator and they are not getting the truth from this government in this place tonight.
Mothers who would perhaps normally be ready to put their feet up after a hard day of looking after their families, balancing their work-life and their commitment to their community have asked me to ask you these questions. 'Why does the senator want to pass a bill where it has been proven that the SES model is fundamentally flawed? Why doesn't he fix the modelling first and then present the bill?' What an insightful question from a mother who probably just a few weeks ago did not realise that she would have to sit down and spend hours and hours trawling through the misrepresentations that have been put out into the public place in the government's own school funding calculator? How many mothers of young children sit down and have to trawl their way through this data?
The Senate trans cript was published up to 22:30 . The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.