Division
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
Senate, 2017-06-22. negative: ayes 19, noes 42.
Question
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
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.