Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the amendment and against this bill, the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. No matter how many times the Prime Minister says the words 'fairness' and 'Gonski 2.0', it does not mean that he is delivering true needs-based funding in our schools. If he were delivering true needs-based funding in our schools, then Aldinga Beach B-7 School would not be getting a cut, Braeview School R-7 in my electorate would not be getting a cut, Christie Downs Primary School in my electorate would not be getting a cut, Christies Beach High School would not be getting a cut and Christies Beach Primary School would not be getting a cut. I could list the schools in my electorate. These are all public schools and all schools that service disadvantaged communities. There is $15 million worth of cuts in years 2018 and '19 alone from these schools that need this money to deliver an excellent education. So the Prime Minister can go around all he wants and talk about fairness, but unless he reinstates this funding to my schools in my electorate—these government schools that need this money to look after kids with a disability and kids from some of the most needy communities in the electorate—then he is not fair dinkum about needs-based funding, and we are calling him out on it.

Indeed, Labor went through an extensive process to work out the Schooling Resource Standard—one that would meet the needs of students to deliver an excellent education. Then it looked at who needed extra help—those with a disability, those from disadvantaged backgrounds, Aboriginal students, Indigenous students, those who did not have English as a first language, those that needed those extra resources. That is how the model was developed.

The government keeps talking about 27 different contracts. What the government fails to mention is that Labor was working with a very fragmented sector—different states, different territories, different school systems. We were working with them as a six-year plan to get them to the point where they all reached the Schooling Resource Standard. We were on track to do that. Then we had this government come in. What was the first thing that they did? The first thing that they did was to last make a $30 billion cut to our schools, despite saying, 'We're on a unity ticket. We'll match dollar for dollar.' I saw those posters at the last election in 2013. I saw those members get up and proudly say that when they felt threatened in their seats. The first thing they did was rip up that commitment—they ripped it up.

And then what did they do? The Prime Minister came into this parliament and said, 'We're going to just do a $22 billion cut.' Well, tell that to—and I will continue my list—Flaxmill School, to Hackham East Primary School, to Hackham West R-7 School. Once again, these are schools that are delivering high-quality education to some of the most disadvantaged in our country. I have met with these principals, and they know resources matter. I have met with so many school communities. They have said, 'If only we could have some extra support in our classrooms. If only we could have the extra technology and facilities in our classroom.' Hackham West R-7 School said that they wanted to have the money to open up some extra space for a sensory room, because they have a significant number of autistic children who need some time out and some specially designed space for them to feel comfortable. This is money being ripped out by this government.

The schools I have talked about are public schools, and we know that they are getting a $15 million cut over two years. But we also have many Catholic, Lutheran and independent schools delivering education to communities that do need extra support. This government has the gall to come in and tell those principals, those school communities, that they are well off and they deserve this cut—that they should be grateful for the scraps they are given. That is an outrageous attitude to take to our schools and our school communities. Parents and volunteers give up time to raise money for their schools and provide a few extra resources, and telling them that they should be grateful for this cut shows the attitude of those on the other side—they are so desperate, from poor polling, that they are trying to somehow convince people that they care about fairness, they care about their schools. That is absolutely not true. Our side of parliament will stick up for those schools, we will stick up for the school communities, we will stick up for those teachers who have great ideas but need the resources to implement them in the classroom. We will stick up for those governing councils and parents and friends committees that have really good ideas about how to make their school better, and we will stick up for those students who deserve the highest quality education to give them a better future than the future their parents had. We will stick up for those students and demand that the government reduce their $22 billion worth of cuts and sign up to a true needs based funding system, not some figment of the Prime Minister's imagination—a Prime Minister who thinks that using the words 'fairness' and 'Gonski 2.0' makes it fair. It does not. We will continue to make this point right up till the next election.

See this speech in context