Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise with absolute relish to speak on this MPI today, because, as everybody in this building knows, education is what I was involved in for 27 years before I joined my colleagues in this place. When I rise to talk about this government's supposed new policy, its supposed new funding for education, it is with absolute assurance that I say that you cannot turn a $22 billion cut to schools and education into a positive. You just cannot do it.

Look at what those cuts mean state by state: in New South Wales, that is a $6.9 billion cut; in Victoria, it is a $5.4 billion cut; in Queensland, it is a $4.6 billion cut; in South Australia, it is a $1 billion cut; in WA, it is a $2.4 billion cut; in the ACT, it is a $390 million cut; in the NT, it is a $240 million cut; and in Tassie, it is a $470 million cut. That is what these cuts mean.

I know that those opposite are excited to come into this chamber, because they think they have got a good news story to tell about schools. I understand that for the last four years, every time we mentioned schools, they ran away and hid because they knew they did not have a good story to tell. Now they have listened to our Prime Minister—Prime Minister 2.0—try to reset this debate and reset this conversation with the Australian public. Guys, it is a fizzer. This announcement is an absolute fizzer, and no ready reckoner is going to get you out of that. The cuts are real: the schools know the cuts are real; principals know the cuts are real. They know that in 2011 the review happened. They know that there was an urgency about making sure that we implemented a needs-based model. They know that those opposite have not been able to put the words 'needs-based' into a sentence for four years. They know that those opposite made a promise and then broke that promise. Former Prime Minister Abbott made a promise, and then he walked into this place and broke that promise. And standing next to him was the member for Sturt, remember? 'It's a "Conski",' he kept saying. 'It's a "Conski".' Well this is a 'Conski'.

This is not going to deliver for our schools what was promised when Gonski did that review with the expert panel. It is not going to deliver needs-based funding to schools, and schools and families will know it, because they know who ended the funding wars. The whole of Australia knows who ended the funding wars in education. Her name was Julia Gillard, and it was her life's work to end those funding wars and set us on a plane where the federal government could make a contribution to schools across this country regardless of sector. They know that sector-blind modelling is the only way for this to happen.

Even today in question time, although those opposite managed to use the phrase 'needs based', they did not understand what it means. They do not understand 'sector-blind', because if they did the Catholics would not be up in arms about this. If it were sector blind, there would be nothing to complain about. This is a $22 billion cut from what schools were promised at an election by a Liberal Prime Minister. It is a cut that will be felt across this nation in classrooms everywhere, and it is an absolute disgrace.

When the Prime Minister last week announced that he was going to end the funding wars, I set my clock, just as I set my clock when the then opposition leader said he was on a ticket with us on funding these schools. I set my clock for how long until that little bubble burst, in the same way I did when sitting as a candidate and listening to the member for Warringah make his promise and then break his promise.

You have not just got an issue with people going to the detail in this. Of course, that will happen across the next month. When we go to the detail, and when every principal in this country goes to the detail, they are going to know what they are not getting. You can tell them as much as you like. Go to the ready reckoner and see what you are going to get. They have been here for four years. They know what the promise was. They know what they expect. Their families know what they expect. The sectors know what they expect.

With 12 seconds to go, I just want to reiterate this: when is COAG, and when are you going to talk to the states about this? There are 27 agreements because there are 27 different sectors, and you are about to find out how you have to negotiate with all of them.

See this speech in context