Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before I speak about the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017, I just have a couple of little corrections. I was asked to mention the fact that Keira High School, which is not in Gilmore, was mentioned by a member on the other side as a school that would be losing funding. In fact, I have the numbers here. Every student in that school is allocated $2,976 this year, and next year it is going up to $3,127.

From my maths—and while I am only a masters educator—that is actually an increase, so I do not understand where these people are getting these mythical numbers from. They are quoting a six-year-old figure which was never funded—never funded! Those opposite funded four years of programming. It was in the forward estimates; they did not fund the final two. It was some mythical, cloudy number that they pulled out of the universe. It does not add up, so they should stop talking about reductions in funding and look at the reality.

During the 2017 budget we finally saw a fully funded and fair education strategy for all Australian children. This $18.6 billion reform plan is the continuation of the essence of needs based funding that was central to the review, education and philosophy of the original author of the funding changes in Australia's education, David Gonski. He 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.

…   …   …

… when we did the 2011 review, our whole concept was that there would be a school's resource standard which would be nominated and we nominated one, and I'm very pleased that the Turnbull Government has taken that …

That is a quote from David Gonski, from 2 May this year.

If David Gonski himself is not enough, then Labor should listen to some of the many other independent education experts who have backed the coalition's plan. Pete Goss from the Grattan Institute said in May:

The announcement on school funding is welcome. The Coalition has set out a 10-year goal of every school being consistently funded by the commonwealth.

Bronwyn Hinz from the Mitchell Institute said on an ABC interview in southern Queensland on 3 May, 'The things that stand out to me as positive are a much bigger emphasis on really matching the funding where it is needed. The first version of Gonski did a lot of this, but it had shortcomings.'

Shelley Hill from the Australian Parents Council, in her media release of 3 May said:

The Australian Parents Council welcomes the announcement by the Prime Minister and Education Minister …

…   …   …

It is very positive to hear the commitment to a single, needs-based, sector blind funding model for Australian schools …

Personally, I am appalled by the opposition playing politics, yet again, with the education of children—particularly those with a disability, those in low-socioeconomic regions and those trying to encourage Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander students to attend and thrive. The constant squawking about 'cuts!' to education barely registers with the general public, especially when they see the increased funding written in black and white and funded. The money is allocated in the budget and it will be delivered.

The Labor Party tries to convince the community that their funding set-up six years ago under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor government was concrete and promised. The final two years of their funding model were unfunded. They were not funded, and no matter how many times they repeat their squawk of 'funding cuts!', like the bird calls in the bush, repeating the call does not make it truth. Actually, this strategy of constantly repeating mistruths is insulting and deceitful for everyday Australians and certainly confusing for parents everywhere, including those in Gilmore.

Within the bubble of politics, the argy-bargy of debate can easily be dissected into truth and false facts. However, many parts of the media are not quite as savvy and they repeat the false data—over and over goes the myth.

See this speech in context