Bill
Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017
passed, as at 2017-06-27. Education and Training portfolio.
- Sponsor
- Not recorded
- Portfolio
- Education and Training
Recorded stages
- introduced — 2017-05-11
- second reading — 2017-05-11
- second reading — 2017-05-23
- second reading — 2017-05-24
- second reading — 2017-05-25
- second reading — 2017-05-29
- second reading — 2017-05-29
- third reading — 2017-05-29
- introduced — 2017-06-13
- second reading — 2017-06-13
- second reading — 2017-06-21
- second reading — 2017-06-21
- committee — 2017-06-21
- committee — 2017-06-22
- other — 2017-06-22
- third reading — 2017-06-22
- other — 2017-06-22
- passed — 2017-06-22
- royal assent — 2017-06-27
Divisions
- Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Don't agree with bill's main idea — 2017-05-29, House of Representatives: negative, ayes 69, noes 77
- Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea — 2017-05-29, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 77, noes 70
- Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 - Third Reading - Speed things along — 2017-05-29, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 77, noes 69
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2017-05-29.126.1) to suspend the [standing orders](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/standing-orders.html) so that the House can immediately decide whether they want to pass the bill (known as reading the bill for a [third time](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html)). Standing orders are the procedural rules of parliament. The motion had been introduced by Liberal MP Alan Tudge (for Aston). ### Motion text > *That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.* ### What is this bill all about? The [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5866) was introduced to implement the Coalition Government's new school funding proposal. Unfortunately, at the time of this vote there was still no bills digest to explain exactly what the new proposal is, but there is a [very helpful and easy to understand explanation on The Conversation](http://theconversation.com/confused-about-changes-to-school-funding-heres-what-you-need-to-know-78455) by Associate Professor Misty Adoniou. As a brief summary: * the proposal offers more money for schools, but less than the previous Labor Government had offered; * every student will attract the same amount of funding but the amount of funding that the federal government will provide (as opposed to the state governments) is not equal between government and non-government schools (that is, the federal government will provide 80% of the funding for non-government schools but only 20% for government schools, with the states paying the difference); * those in need will get more funding, but the Government still doesn't have any proposal for how this will work or even how many students will be eligible for this, which leaves a big question mark over the whole proposal. ### How are schools currently fun — 2017-05-29, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 77, noes 70
- Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 - Third Reading - Speed things along — 2017-05-29, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 77, noes 70
- Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Criticism of Gonski 2.0 — 2017-06-21, Senate: negative, ayes 20, noes 43
- Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea — 2017-06-21, Senate: affirmative, ayes 34, noes 30
- The majority voted in favour of agreeing with the [amendments](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fsched%2Fr5866_sched_7821fa2a-17dd-4fb6-893c-bf9c5562d383%22;rec=0) requested by the Senate. ### What were these amendments? Read more about these amendments in the [supplementary explanatory memorandum](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr5866_ems_7ff6c162-6885-4929-a68c-0e47e19afe15%22;rec=0), though note that this document is produced by the government and so may be considered a political document. — 2017-06-22, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 73, noes 64
- The majority voted in favour of [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-06-22.193.1) introduced by South Australian Senator [Simon Birmingham](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/simon_birmingham) (Liberal), which means they passed and will now be included in the bill. Senator Birmingham [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-06-22.193.1): > *The amendments I have just moved, which are now before the chamber, will accelerate the transition period that the government has proposed for all of those schools and systems who are below the 20 per cent and 80 per cent shares. It will not have any impact on those systems or independent authorities who are above the 20 per cent or 80 per cent shares. It will ensure, though, that those who are below that will transition to that common share of 20 per cent and 80 per cent over the next six years. By 2023, we will have every government school system in the country being treated equally, fairly, by the Commonwealth government according to the Gonski formula. By 2023, we will see all of those underfunded, non-government schools and systems treated equally and fairly and transition to a common formula of the Gonski funding.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 9), after "year", insert "for the school".* > > *(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 10), after item 1, insert:* > >> *1A Section 6* >> >> *Insert:* >> >>> *6 -year transitioning school means a transitioning school whose starting Commonwealth share is less than its final Commonwealth share.* > > *(3) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 10), before item 2, insert:* > >> *1B Section 6* >> >> *Insert:* >> >>> *final Commonwealth share has the meaning given by subsection 35B(6).* > > *(4) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 23), after item 5, insert:* > >> *5A Section 6* >> >> *Insert:* >> >>> *starting Commonwealth share has the meaning given by subsection 35B(2).* > > *(5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line — 2017-06-22, Senate: affirmative, ayes 54, noes 2
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-06-22.221.1) introduced by South Australian Senator [Cory Bernardi](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/cory_bernardi) (Australian Conservatives), which means they failed. Senator Bernardi [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-06-22.221.1): > *The amendments I have proposed here are that the funding will be allocated in accordance with the government's own projections over the forward estimates—in fact, slightly further on than that because we are already into the first year. Basically, they say: 'Yes, the funding is there for the next four years. Then, if you want more funding to pursue it, come back to the parliament and resubmit it again and have the discussion again about the best way forward.'* ### Amendment text > *Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit "176", substitute "181".* > > *Schedule 1, page 37 (after line 26), at the end of the Schedule, add:* > > *Part 4—Limiting commitments* > > *177 Subsections 67(2) and 69A(1) (note 2)* > >> *Repeal the note.* > > *178 Subsections 112(3) to (5)* > >> *Omit "section 126", substitute "subsection 126(1)".* > > *179 Section 126* > >> *Before "The Consolidated Revenue Fund", insert "(1)".* > > *180 Section 126* > >> *After "for a year", insert "commencing before 1 January 2022".* > > *181 At the end of section 126* > >> *Add:* >> >> *(2) Payments of financial assistance under this Act to a State or Territory for a year commencing on or after 1 January 2022 are to be made out of money appropriated by the Parliament by another Act.* — 2017-06-22, Senate: negative, ayes 2, noes 46
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-06-22.230.1) introduced by Victorian Senator [Jacinta Collins](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/jacinta_collins) (Labor), which means they failed. Senator Collins [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-06-22.230.1): > *The government's bill entrenches a discriminatory distribution of funding by prescribing sector-specific targets of 80 per cent of the SRS for non-government schools and 20 per cent of the SRS for public schools, fundamentally opposite to the review of the funding of schooling objective of a sector-blind model. In fact, it is quite sector specific. There is no reason for the arbitrary decision to fund just 20 per cent of the schooling resource standard for public schools and 80 per cent for non-government schools. That is not what the Gonski review recommended.* > > *The government's funding model provides a majority of extra funding for the non-government sector despite the public sector educating the majority of educationally disadvantaged children. This was clearly detailed in the Prime Minister and Minister Birmingham's media release on the day of the announcement. The government's target of 80 per cent of private schools in 2027 and 20 per cent for public schools in 2027 has no requirement for states or territories to ever increase their funding. The crossbench, in Gonski 2.0-plus, has somewhat attempted to deal with that issue but we have already covered that territory.* ### Amendment text > *That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:* > > *(1) Schedule 1 , item 1 , page 3 (lines 4 to 10) , omit the item.* > > *(3) Schedule 1 , page 3 (after line 13) , after item 2, insert:* > >> *2A Section 6* >> >> *Insert:* >> >> *overall funding , for a school for a year, is the total of:* >> >>> *(a) the school' s total entitlement for the year; and* >>> >>> *(b) any recurrent funding — 2017-06-22, Senate: negative, ayes 19, noes 42
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-06-22.235.1) introduced by Victorian Senator [Jacinta Collins](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/jacinta_collins) (Labor), which means they failed. She [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-06-22.235.1): > *These amendments deal with retaining the minister's ability to set SES for a group of schools and maintaining the existing primary capacity-to-contribute curve. We have canvassed this issue several times already during the debate on this bill, so I will attempt to cover a range of key points fairly quickly to reinforce the discussion that has already occurred. Because the SES scores do not seem to accurately assess the ability of school communities to pay fees and changes to the primary capacity-to-contribute curve, many low-fee systemic schools and indeed catholic schools will be hard hit. The government's bill assumes that primary parents are able to contribute more to fees than is currently the case.* ### Amendment text > *(13) Schedule 1 , item 43 , page 13 (line 29) , omit " sections 52 and 53 ", substitute " section 52 ".* > > *(14) Schedule 1 , item 43 , page 13 (line 33) , omit " subsection 52(1) ", substitute " section 52 ".* — 2017-06-22, Senate: negative, ayes 19, noes 42
- The majority voted in favour of keeping [items 3, 41 and 42](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5866_aspassed%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5866_aspassed%2F0000%22;rec=0) of the bill unchanged. This vote took place after Victorian Senator [Jacinta Collins](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/jacinta_collins) (Labor) introduced an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-06-22.235.1) to oppose those items. In explaining her reasoning, [she said that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-06-22.235.1): > *These amendments deal with retaining the minister's ability to set SES for a group of schools and maintaining the existing primary capacity-to-contribute curve. We have canvassed this issue several times already during the debate on this bill, so I will attempt to cover a range of key points fairly quickly to reinforce the discussion that has already occurred. Because the SES scores do not seem to accurately assess the ability of school communities to pay fees and changes to the primary capacity-to-contribute curve, many low-fee systemic schools and indeed catholic schools will be hard hit. The government's bill assumes that primary parents are able to contribute more to fees than is currently the case.* — 2017-06-22, Senate: affirmative, ayes 43, noes 19
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-06-22.242.1) introduced by NSW Senator [David Leyonhjelm](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/david_leyonhjelm) (Liberal Democratic Party), which means they failed. Senator Leyonhjelm [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-06-22.242.1): > *Items 1 and 4 remove the minister's power to prescribe the indexation factor for the schooling resource standard. The minister has flagged that he intends to set the indexation factor at 3.56 per cent in the coming years. This is unwarranted. The schooling resource standard is an amount of funding considered appropriate for a student, so it should be indexed so as to maintain that valuation and not accelerate it.* > > *Item 2 removes a three per cent floor on the indexation factor for the schooling resource standard. A floor for the indexation factor is again unwarranted. The value of the standard should be maintained, not accelerated.* > > *Item 3 ensures that the school resourcing standard is indexed in line with the CPI to maintain its real value. The standard should not rise to reflect wages growth. Growth in excess of CPI would only be warranted if teacher productivity improved. Such an improvement in productivity is not a condition of funding under the government's proposal.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (line 23), omit ", or prescribed under,".* > > *(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (lines 18 to 21), omit subsection 11A(1), substitute:* > >> *(1) The SRS indexation factor for a year is the number worked out under subsection (2) for the year.* > > *(3) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (line 22) to page 5 (line 7), omit subsection 11A(2), substitute:* > >> *(2) The number is worked out using the following formula:* >> >> *where:* >> >> *base quarter means the June quarter in the previous year.* >> >> *consumer index number, for a quarter, means the All Groups Consumer Price Index nu — 2017-06-22, Senate: negative, ayes 2, noes 48
- The majority voted against [amendments (11), (14), (15) and (16)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-06-22.248.1), which were introduced by South Australian Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/sarah_hanson-young) (Greens). This means they failed. Senator Hanson-Young [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-06-22.248.1): > *These amendments all relate to the establishment of and putting money into the disability fund and will ensure that we have enough money to support our students and children with a disability in schools. We know that there has been much talk in this debate about the impact of these changes on the disability sector and children in our schools. We have obviously heard the revolting and very unhelpful comments from Senator Hanson in relation to children with a disability. What the Greens want to do is to request an extra $300 million to ensure that we have enough support in our schools across the country for our children with a disability.* ### Amendment text > *(11) Schedule 1 , page 24 (after line 27) , after item 82 , insert:* > >> *82A Subsections 67(2) and 69A(1) (note 2)* >> >> *Omit "' section 126"' , substitute "' subsection 126(1)"' .* > > *(14) Schedule 1 , page 26 (after line 21) , after item 98 , insert:* > >> *98A Subsections 112(3) to (5)* >> >> *Omit "' section 126"' , substitute "' subsection 126(1)"' .* > > *(15) Schedule 1 , page 27 (after line 2) , after item 101 , insert:* > >> *101A Section 126* >> >> *Before "' The Consolidated Revenue Fund"' , insert "' (1)"' .* > > *(16) Schedule 1 , page 27 (after line 5) , after item 102 , insert:* > >> *102A At the end of section 126* >> >> *Add:* >> >> *(2) It is the Parliament' s intention to, by another Act, establish a fund of at least $300 million to meet the needs of students with disability.* — 2017-06-22, Senate: negative, ayes 9, noes 39
- The majority voted against a [request](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-06-22.260.1) moved by South Australian Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/sarah_hanson-young) (Greens), which means it failed. ### Amendment text > *(2) Schedule 1 , item 16 , page 6 (line 20) , omit "' 20% "' , substitute "' 24% "' .* Senator Hanson-Young [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-06-22.260.1): > *This amendment goes right to the heart of what we have been debating here tonight and over the last couple of months in this place. This is about ensuring that we look after our public schools. Currently under this legislation the government is proposing to fund 20 per cent from the federal government, 20 per cent of the share of getting schools up to their resource standard. We know that, in order to look after the neediest schools, the best thing we can do is increase the share of federal government funding to our public schools. We are worried that, in some states, they are simply not going to have the cash to get those schools up to standard in a reasonable amount of time. This amendment would ensure that the federal government does its best to look after all of those schools across the country, our public schools. That must be our priority. If we were to lift the Commonwealth share from 20 per cent it would cost the budget that magical number that we have heard a lot about over the last eight weeks—$22 billion.* — 2017-06-22, Senate: negative, ayes 9, noes 41
- Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 - in Committee - Agree with the bill's main idea — 2017-06-22, Senate: affirmative, ayes 34, noes 31
- Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 - Third Reading - Pass the bill — 2017-06-22, Senate: affirmative, ayes 34, noes 31
Plain-language summary
No machine-written summary in this export.
Sources
em
em supp
billhome
frl act