Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that the $210 million funding cut to South Australian schools in 2018 and 2019 means that schools will face significant cuts, which the South Australian Government has estimated to include:

(a) $1,315,000 from Adelaide High School;

(b) $882,000 from Craigmore High School;

(c) $1,392,000 from Norwood Morialta High School;

(d) $1,114,000 from Gawler and District College B-12;

(e) $817,000 from Parafield Gardens High School;

(f) $1,226,000 from Paralowie School;

(g) $875,000 from Playford International College;

(h) $512,000 from Nailsworth Primary School;

(i) $731,000 from Glenelg Primary School;

(j) $24,000 from South Australian School for Vision Impaired;

(k) $1,165,000 from Roma Mitchell Secondary College;

(l) $426,000 from Port Noarlunga Primary School; and

(m) $863,000 from Thebarton Senior College; and

(2) calls on the Australian Government to immediately reinstate the funding previously committed to South Australian schools.

This motion revolves around the deal that this government—the Turnbull government; the Liberal Party—did with the Nick Xenophon Team to cut $210 million out of South Australian schools. We all know, in South Australia, the importance of well-funded schools. I've spoken in this House many times about Gonski—about the importance of the full Gonski and about the fact that the full Gonski was legislated for, which is why bills had to come through this House and the Senate to change that level of funding. That's why this is a cut, because the government legislated and the Nick Xenophon Team voted 57 times in the Senate to cut funds from South Australian schools.

For the benefit of those listening, this is the effect of that $210 million cut—because sometimes when things are shown at the macro level you don't quite understand what the impact is at the local level. In, for instance, the state seat of Elizabeth, the Adelaide North Special School lost $152,000; Blakeview Primary School lost $520,000 over two years; Craigmore High School lost $882,000 over two years; Craigmore South Primary School lost $237,000; Elizabeth Downs Primary School lost $313,000; Elizabeth East Primary School lost $252,000; Elizabeth Grove Primary School lost $248,000; Elizabeth Park Primary School lost $332,000; Elizabeth South Primary School lost $181,000; Elizabeth Vale Primary School lost $344,000; Kaurna Plains School, a school for Indigenous students, lost $81,000; Playford International College lost $875,000; Playford Primary School lost $692,000; and the South Downs Primary School, where my mother taught prior to bringing me into this world, lost $116,000. That's the effect on all of the schools in the state seat of Elizabeth. For the people in those communities, the March state election is an opportunity to send a message to the Liberal Party and to the Nick Xenophon Team about what you think about those cuts to your local schools.

Similarly, in the state seat of Playford, the East Para Primary School lost $408,000; Karrendi Primary School lost $196,000; Mawson Lakes School lost $696,000; Para Hills High School lost $456,000; Para Hills School P-7 lost $239,000; Para Hills West Primary School lost $195,000; Parafield Gardens High School lost $817,000; Parafield Gardens R-7 School lost $565,000; and the Pines School lost $571,000—again, massive cuts to local primary schools, local high schools, special schools and schools that cater for Indigenous students across the northern suburbs of Adelaide.

These are savage cuts which directly affect their capacity to educate children in our local area. They directly affect their capacity to actually deliver the NAPLAN results we want and the opportunities we want for those students. These cuts are not just to this generation of students; those cuts get locked in over time. They will affect generations of students in the north. The March 2017 election is an opportunity for every one of the residents that relies on those local schools to send a message to the Liberal Party and to Nick Xenophon to say: 'We won't accept your cuts. We want the full Gonski model. We want the full $210 million to be reinstated to help our local schools, to help our local students and to help our local communities.'

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened to the contribution of the member for Wakefield with great interest, and I was reminded of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister.

Mr Champion interjecting—

I never said you were; I never implied in any way—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Member for Wakefield?

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, a point of order: I'll cop a lot of things, but I'm not going to be compared to a Nazi, and he should withdraw.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I haven't compared the member to a Nazi. It was a quote from Joseph Goebbels, which I haven't had the opportunity to deliver yet.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's very, very close to the line, but I'll allow the member for Grey to continue, and I'll listen.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was reputed to have said that if you tell a lie enough and keep repeating it people will eventually come to believe it. The member for Wakefield went down a long list of schools. I won't mention how many, but the underlying fact here is that these schools have not had funding cut. He seems to believe that if he repeats it long enough people will believe it.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Member for Wakefield?

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grey says he's not comparing me to Joseph Goebbels and then goes on to reiterate a point comparing me to Joseph Goebbels. He should just withdraw. It's completely unacceptable, and I take great personal offence to it.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the member for Grey has actually stepped over the line on that one.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then in that case I withdraw.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Grey.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do believe, though, that a mistruth is being repeated here which is simply not correct. Labor and the member opposite claim to have the high moral ground on education. On one hand they say David Gonski's the font of all knowledge on education, when in fact Mr Gonski was never happy with the model Labor devised. They ignore his statements to that point, and in fact they even named their hotchpotch of funding after him—the 'the full Gonski'. How disappointing it must be to them that David Gonski has disowned that model. They never had the full Gonski. They never had full needs based funding. They had a different set of deals for each state and each sector within the state, meaning that students in one state were receiving less than students from other states in similar schools and of similar socioeconomic backgrounds. In fact, the model provided incentives to states to reduce funding to schools. What the Labor Party will not acknowledge now is that their unfunded proposal was not fair or consistent, and the man they've put so much store in—the man they named their unfunded policy after, David Gonski—has not endorsed their model; he has endorsed the government's.

How can it be that grown-up people duly elected to this place can stand here and say that an increase in funding is a cut? What planet does that come from? Australia wide, the government sector will receive an extra $25 billion over the next 10 years on the 2016-17 figures—extra, not less. I had a look at the dictionary, and in this context 'cut' means 'reduce, decrease, decline, drop or fall'. I asked myself, which one of these best coincides with 'increase'? Is an increase a drop? Is an increase a fall? Is an increase a decrease? It's just as well the member for Wakefield is not a maths teacher. Is it that the member for Wakefield doesn't want an extra $850,000 for Craigmore High School over the next four years? Or is it that he doesn't want an extra $700,000 for Salisbury Primary over the next 10 years? Perhaps he should tell Elizabeth South Primary School that he's opposed to their receiving an extra $210,000 over the next four years and $430,000 over the next 10 and is hanging out for a better offer.

In my electorate there are schools like Ceduna, Port Augusta Secondary, Whyalla High, Port Pirie Secondary and especially remote and disadvantaged schools, like Ernabella and Coober Pedy, that stand to gain greatly from the new arrangements. Labor and the member for Wakefield are flogging a dead horse—a dead and deceitful horse—on this particular issue. And how do I know the horse is dead? Because I'm not getting any contact to my office. No-one is contacting my office and saying they are unhappy with the education deal that has been put forward by the federal government. I've been in this place long enough to pretty much know that a government policy is out of order with a sector of the community—the phones and emails run hot. On this issue there is silence. That's why I know the government has got it right. The only people left bleating at the edges now are the Labor Party. They are the only people. Everybody else has moved on from this issue. I congratulate Senator Birmingham, Minister for Education and Training, on this model. He has done very good work.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wakefield for bringing this very important motion to the parliament. On 29 January, as South Australian students were walking into their new classrooms, excited to find out who was in their class for this year and who would be their teacher, they were blissfully unaware, probably, that this federal government had robbed them of their rights to a properly funded education. Their teachers, however, are all too keenly aware of what these children have been denied.

South Australian schools have been betrayed by this government, which, with the disgraceful support of the Nick Xenophon Team, tore up a clear written agreement promising never to touch funding, taking $210 million from South Australian schools over just two years, 2018 and 2019. In my electorate of Port Adelaide, the cuts to public schools alone total more than $14.6 million over the coming two years. Two schools in my electorate, Woodville High and Paralowie R-12, stand to lose more than $1 million each. These figures are simply unbelievable. The value of the resources that these schools would've been able to use to support their students—Indigenous students, recent migrants and students with special needs—and to provide greater one-on-one time with teachers for all students is immeasurable. The true costs of this cut are beyond numbers. They shape the future for our children.

All 31 of the public schools in my electorate will receive funding cuts, against the written agreement this government had promised to implement. These are some of the most high-needs school in South Australia, including schools servicing the northern areas of Adelaide, like Paralowie R-12, Parafield Gardens High, the Adelaide School of Languages—a vital resource for new migrants to South Australia—and not one but two special education schools in my electorate: The Grove Education Centre and the Adelaide West Special Education Centre. The government has done all of this while at the same time giving a $65 billion tax cut to big business, robbing our children to give to big business CEOs.

Australia has always punched above its weight on the world stage in economic terms, in scientific discovery and in innovation, and we've achieved this through a strong tradition of public education. Public education in every colony of Australia was firmly established by 1880. Even prior to that, church parishes provided education with government support. This is what has allowed us to achieve at the same level as nations much older, more established and more populous than we have ever been. But we've never sat on our laurels. We've always striven to better our system and the outcomes that we achieve for our children.

That was what drove the Labor Party to commission the Gonski review. Our reforms weren't politically motivated. They were the recommendations of the best education experts in the nation. This government's poor shadow of Gonski reforms aren't based on the best advice of educators. They're not based on the desire for a world-class system. They're based purely on political games that sacrifice our children's futures. Almost more disgraceful was the betrayal of the Nick Xenophon Team, the so-called SA-BEST party, who broke their promise to South Australia and have ended up delivering 'SA second best'. Nick Xenophon promised in writing that he would deliver the Gonski reforms in full—but, true to form, when the crunch came, Nick Xenophon sold out South Australian children.

Every Australian child should be taught that they can achieve, regardless of postcode or parental income. They should be given the tools that allow them to do that. That is what our school system should be based upon. But Gonski found it wasn't doing that—that we needed proper needs based funding to give every kid the power to unlock their full potential. An OECD report released in September last year found that Australian students attending richer schools have an unfair advantage, particularly when it comes to STEM education—a higher resource-demand area, as we all know. By contrast, nations with better STEM outcomes had similar rates of resources and access, regardless of the socio-economic status of the school. Under this government's system, the difference between the public schools, Catholic schools and less wealthy independent schools on the one hand and the more elite private colleges on the other will only grow, and Australia will only fall further behind.

Gonski was a vote of confidence in all children, regardless of whether they went to elite private colleges or the local public or Catholic school. Gonski said, 'The kids in all schools deserve the same resources as those whose families can afford the elite private schools.' We know that the children in less wealthy schools can achieve when given the proper tools.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we go again—another election campaign, another big untruth peddled by the Australian Labor Party. At the last federal election we had the infamous 'Mediscare' campaign. It was a completely dishonest, deceptive campaign that scared pensioners in the middle of the night under the false premise that the coalition was going to privatise Medicare. We heard the comments from the member for Wakefield. He should come to the dispatch box and apologise to everyone in his electorate for misleading them at the last election. He should say: 'I am sorry. I misled you. I tricked you about the Mediscare campaign.' But, instead, he comes into this House and he wears it like a badge of honour. As if it's a badge of honour that the Labor member deceives his own electorate. What a sham! Here we go again. This time we've got the cuts to education. It is a big untruth, which is repeated over and over and over—as the member for Grey noted—in the hope that people will remember it, frightening schoolchildren, frightening parents. Will they ever learn?

The facts are: under this coalition government there is record funding going to schools this year. Never before in the history of the Commonwealth has more funding flowed to Australian schools than it has under this coalition government. And next year they will receive more. And the year after that they will receive more. And yet we have the Labor Party coming in here claiming that there are cuts. Of course, this goes back to the infamous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd regime with their sort of trickery around their Gonski funding. Of course, we all know that we do our forward estimates over four years. And, of course, it just happened to be that their Gonski funding was all back-loaded in years 5 and 6 so they never had to show where the money was coming from, because they didn't have a clue.

Today it's almost as though we live in a post-truth world with the Labor Party. Take the member for Port Adelaide, the shadow minister for energy, who just came in. On his Facebook page he's got a post up sharing the South Australian Premier's post that says, 'South Australia leading the way.' It also says, 'South Australia is already a world leader in affordable and reliable power.' South Australia, a world leader in affordable power! No wonder the member for Wakefield's head goes down, because he knows that South Australia have not only the highest electricity prices in Australia but they now have the proud title of the highest electricity prices in the world. And yet we have the Premier of that state saying that they are a world leader in affordable power. You couldn't make this up—George Orwell could not make this stuff up. For the Labor Party it is like 'freedom is slavery' and 'ignorance is strength'—affordable electricity is the world's most expensive, and increases in government spending are a cut. We see this time and time again. When a Labor member comes to the dispatch box or starts to talk about anything, you really need to check. If they said it was raining, you would need to go outside to check for yourself. Another example: again we had the member for Port Adelaide on his Facebook page last year saying, 'Thermal coal exports are in rapid decline.' Rapid decline for coal exports! The numbers are just in for Australia's coal exports—guess what? They're not in rapid decline. In 2007 we had the highest export earnings of coal in our nation's history. They were up 35 per cent on 2016 levels. Last year we exported $56.5 billion worth of coal, up 35 per cent. That even beats the previous record, in 2011, of 46.7. We had 20 per cent above our best ever exports of coal—and we have the member for Port Adelaide saying that thermal coal exports were in rapid decline. Is there any wonder that nobody believes a word that comes out of the mouths— (Time expired)

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Medicare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion is about education funding. I commend the member for Wakefield for bringing it before the House. But we just heard the member for Hughes, in five minutes, talk about anything but education funding, which is proof of the very point we are trying to make—that $210 million has been cut from South Australian schools as a result of the Turnbull government changing the agreement that previously existed between the federal government and the state of South Australia. This is a cut; it's a real cut, based on a previous agreement. So it's no good for members of the government to come into this place and say, 'This is not a cut. Education funding is going to increase over the next few years.' It may well do, but it will not increase by the amount that was previously committed to South Australia by a previous federal government. That's why it is a $210 million cut.

It's interesting that, last week, when there was an MPI before this place on this very issue, not one South Australian member was prepared to come into the chamber and defend the cuts, because they knew that, for all their attempts to spin it as an increase, the reality is that it's going to be a $210 million cut to South Australian schools. I say to the member for Grey, who spoke earlier on with respect to Ceduna, Ernabella and Fregon schools: Ceduna will lose $461,000 from these cuts, Ernabella will lose $145,000 and Fregon will lose $58,000. These are some of the most needy schools in South Australia, and yet they will lose that money, which would have gone a long way to helping the students who go to those schools and their families.

For South Australia it means that public schools will be the worst off out of this $210 million cut. They will lose $168 million. These are the schools that look after our lowest-income families—the schools that need it the most. I'm aware of schools in South Australia that are already bursting at the seams; they do not have enough classroom space and, therefore, have too many children in their classrooms, because they could do with the extra funding. Yet we're seeing the funds being cut.

In my own electorate of Makin, 38 schools are going to lose $16.6 million over the next two years. Those are, again, schools that I'm very familiar with, and I can assure listeners to this debate that they are not wealthy schools; they are not schools that have extravagant facilities; they are schools that could use every single dollar. I want to list just some of those because I can't list the whole 38: Keithcot Farm Primary School, $434,000; Salisbury East High, $565,000; Para Hills High, $456,000; Salisbury Heights Primary, $367,000; and East Para Primary, $408,000. Those are just some examples of some of the cuts that are being made to schools in my electorate, where the parents will inevitably have to pay because, when the schools cannot afford to fund the facilities that they need, they inevitably increase their school charges to the families of the students that go there.

So funding does make a difference. It makes a difference to the quality of the education for the child, but it also makes a difference to the families who are already struggling because they have probably had their hours cut at work and because of the increased cost of living—and who now will have to find additional dollars just to make sure their kids get an education.

I want to single out a couple of schools in particular that are going to get cuts. The Modbury Special School looks after children with disabilities. I have been to the school several times. It is a very high needs school. And it is going to get a $144,000 cut. These are students that, in all fairness, need all the support they can get. The staff that are already at that school do a fantastic job. But they could do an even better job if they had additional funding. Yet they will be getting a $144,000 cut. As the member for Wakefield pointed out, the special school in his electorate will also be getting a cut.

This is a government that simply doesn't believe in education. We have a Prime Minister who talks about innovation and science but simultaneously cuts education funding to the tune of about $17 billion from what it would otherwise have been, cuts university funding by $2 billion, cuts funding to our TAFEs by about $3 billion, and then talks about us being an innovation nation. You cannot be an innovation nation when you withdraw funding to the education services of whichever stream people want to go down. You cannot expect this nation to prosper from that. Unfortunately, this is a government that absolutely has its priorities wrong when it can find $65 billion in tax cuts for big business and cuts education funding.

Nicolle Flint (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If there's one thing the Australian people can be certain about it's that they cannot trust Labor when they claim funding has been cut, and the Australian people can't trust Labor to fund the promises they make. The claims made by those opposite about funding cuts to South Australian schools is yet another example of the Labor Party deliberately misleading the Australian people. Unfortunately, there are a number of examples I can draw on to illustrate my point. Those opposite promised the National Disability Insurance Scheme but failed to fully fund it. I'm proud to say the Turnbull government is fully funding the NDIS. We are looking after the people in our community who most need our support. Labor promised the NBN but they had no plans to pay for it. In fact, under Labor, the NBN would have cost the Australian people something like $30 billion more and it would have taken six to eight years longer to deliver.

Getting back to the issue we're discussing today, when Labor promised increased funding for schools under Gonski, they did not fund it. In stark contrast, the Turnbull government is investing record funding into our schools and growing that funding in Australian schools. Unfortunately for the residents of my home state of South Australia, it's not just the federal Labor Party who have failed them; it's the state Labor Party too—the Weatherill Labor government. On the so-called Gonski scheme, the state Labor government failed South Australian schools in the most spectacular manner. Premier Jay Weatherill signed South Australia up to a deal that would deliver most of the money in years 5 and 6 of the program—money that we know was never in the forward estimates of the budget. That's right: the Premier of my home state of South Australia signed us up for a deal that delivered almost no money for schools in South Australia in years 5 and 6. The money never existed. It was all to be delivered in the magical years, and the money for those years was never passed by the parliament; it was never in the forward estimates. Those opposite know that this money didn't exist and that they never budgeted for it.

In stark contrast to Labor, the Turnbull government has funded its education policy. The coalition government is investing an extra $23.4 billion in schools over the next decade. I congratulate my South Australian colleague the Minister for Education and Training on the work he is doing in education. Thanks to the minister for education, funding per student is increasing by 52 per cent, on average. In my electorate of Boothby, I have some 24,800 students spread over 52 schools and they are going to benefit from this unprecedented investment in our education system and our school system. Schools in Boothby like Colonel Light Gardens Primary School, Clovelly Park Primary School, Eden Hills Primary School, Mitcham Girls High School, Aberfoyle Park High School, Seaview High School and Edwardstown Primary School will see a 24.3 per cent increase in funding by 2021, growing to 62.8 per cent over the next 10 years. I'm particularly proud of the funding increase for students at Suneden Special School in Mitchell Park, which is near my electorate office, which will see 58.1 per cent growth in funding by 2021, increasing to 131.6 per cent by 2027.

The previous speaker made some points about the support we give to students with disabilities, whether that is physical or intellectual. I'm quite concerned that they are scaring parents with children at these schools, because Suneden Special School is a fabulous example of the incredible support we are giving to the students who most need it. As I said, under the Turnbull government, funding for Suneden Special School will grow by 131.6 per cent over the next decade. Suneden is an independent school for children aged five to 21 years with intellectual and multiple physical disabilities. Currently, the school has about 70 students in attendance and their classes have a high staff-to-student ratio to ensure all students have adequate support through their learning.

The Turnbull Liberal government's schools funding overhaul means, on average, an extra $262 of funding for every student in South Australia in 2018 and $1,099 more by 2021. We are delivering more specialist support, teachers and resources for our schools. We are delivering a more transparent, fairer and more sustainable funding arrangement. We've engaged David Gonski to investigate how our extra funding can be best used to improve results to address the decline in student results over the last decade. We are delivering in education. (Time expired)

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Schools) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to join my Labor colleagues from South Australia in highlighting a stark contrast between the two sides in Australian politics. Labor has a clear vision for supporting our schools and, much more importantly, our students and our future, whereas this government has walked away from both. In the debate on this motion we've seen some extraordinary contributions from government members. I listened carefully to the contribution of the member for Grey, who did not mention students, teachers or parents in his contribution in this debate.

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Incredible!

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Schools) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is incredible, as the member for Shortland says, particularly in light of the electorate that he represents. I have a lot of time for the member for Grey, but I think he should be conscious of what is going on in our Australian schools at the moment. We are seeing an ever-increasing gap in outcomes, and that gap in outcomes isn't simply around the socioeconomic circumstances of parents; it is particularly apparent in remote and regional communities. It's those schools which need extra support that are falling further and further behind. It's those schools which are being particularly short-changed by this government's short-sighted approach to schools funding.

That's why this debate is so important in a South Australian context. It's not just that South Australian schools will be losing $210 million over the next two years; it's that the formula that this government has put in place will strangle South Australian government schools for funding into the future. The formula that this government has put in place is starving South Australian public schools. That's a fact that the government has not recognised and will not recognise, but it is constraining the future of the communities that make up South Australia. That is something that has been recognised in all the schools that I have visited in South Australia—in Adelaide and elsewhere.

Dr Gillespie interjecting—

The minister at the table, the Assistant Minister for Children and Families, seems to find this an amusing debate. I don't see why he would do so.

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's a ridiculous thing to say.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Schools) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will be able to account for himself if he wishes to make a contribution.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Corangamite will sit there quietly.

Ms Henderson interjecting—

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Schools) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And you, too, Member for Corangamite, can make your position clear when it comes to the funding of schools in South Australia. I was here, also, for the contribution of the member for Boothby. I note that her electorate, like that of the member for Barker, will be particularly adversely affected by the cuts contained—

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Every school in Barker gets more—every school.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Schools) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you can make that contribution, but it is clear that there will be nearly $20 million less for schools in the Barker electorate over the next two years—a $20 million cut. The member for Barker should reflect on the growing gap in outcomes between metro and non-metro students in Australia at the moment and think about what this government's package of reforms is doing to counter that. The short answer is: it is exacerbating those differences. There is no model for equity in this government's approach to schools education and there is certainly no mandate to push towards excellence.

I was mentioning the member for Boothby's contribution. To be fair to the member for Boothby, she does have an interest in schools policy, which I recognise and welcome, and she did mention students. She was right to highlight the stark contrast here, because there is a stark contrast between this government and a Shorten Labor government. A Shorten Labor government would invest in our students right around Australia and would walk away from this bizarre compact that locks in inequities in funding in a way that short-changes students in public schools, particularly students in those public schools in states that are the recipients of what can only be described as uncooperative federalism by this government. I refer to South Australia today—the subject of this debate—but the same also applies to Tasmania and the Northern Territory. We are seeing students in school systems that need extra help being denied that. That is the opposite of needs based funding.

Let's be very, very clear about this. The debate before us is not a debate about David Gonski and who can appropriate him; it's a debate about needs based funding. It's about our values when it comes to schooling and its significance for people's lives and our collective wellbeing. We have not walked away from the panel report which led to the National Plan for Schools Improvement. It's that report which we cling to, which the government have walked away from. It is this that is denying South Australian students, particularly students in regional South Australia, a fair go.

One last point: the member for Boothby talked about the contribution of the member for Makin, scaring parents of students with disability. The most egregious failing of this government is short-changing students with disability. We are seeing a much larger number of students needing adjustment, and the funding envelope has not changed.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a story about free beer tomorrow. That's how the Labor Party went about their Gonski proposal. They took a very serious funding issue and said, 'Look, we'll fund it over six years.' For those listening, you would know that the forward estimates occur over four years. The Labor Party significantly back-ended the funding into years 5 and 6. In terms of this place, years 5 and 6 don't exist. You fund programs, whether it's school based or any other sphere of responsibility, over six years. So effectively what the Labor Party was saying, in terms of Gonski school funding, is 'You'll get your free beer tomorrow.' That's the years 5 and 6.

Now they come into this place—make no mistake, this motion is about the South Australian state election that's upcoming, and the Labor Party wanting to find a wedge between themselves and the threat that is the so-called SA-BEST party—and they try to find a point of difference between them. But, quite frankly, this is the wrong way to start, and it's the wrong position. It's more of the kind of 'Mediscare'-type tactics that we saw in the last federal election. Why do I say that? I say that because we have adopted the Gonski plan and we're funding it not with free beer tomorrow but with needs based funding that increases every year across the program. No school in my electorate is worse off, nor should they be, given that there's an additional $1 billion being delivered into the program over the 10 years going forward.

I thought I'd deal with individual schools or classes of schools. I don't know if that's been done. If you talk about public schools in my electorate, they're seeing an increase of 24.3 per cent over the years 2018-21. If you take Keith—that might have been the type of school the member for Scullin was talking about earlier—they've gone from $3,021 in 2018 to $3,755 in 2021. That's a 24.3 per cent increase. Obviously there are great differences among schools across my electorate. We've also got a significant penetration of Lutheran schools in my electorate. They're enjoying increases of 16.7 per cent. Catholic schools: 12.8 per cent increase. Independent schools: 29.2 per cent increase. That's why I and other members of this place received a letter from Gregg Smith, the principal of Rivergum Christian College in my electorate, beseeching those opposite during this debate to vote for our proposal.

This is about what is best for all schools across all sectors in the long-term. So don't take it from those opposite what's best for school sectors. Take it from people within the sector—someone who, with respect, lives this fight daily. Those listening shouldn't fall for this. I'm looking forward to Mr Zappia, or the member for Makin, coming into this place—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Barker, this will be the last time. That's twice. Refer to members by their correct titles.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm looking forward to the member for Makin coming in, Mr Deputy Speaker. You can seek to interrupt me if you wish, but I want to see motions on the following topics—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can sit down if you keep going.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Transforming health. Let's see South Australian members come in here to talk about transforming health. Let's see them come in here to talk about the recent blackouts in South Australia or—something that members might not be aware of—the fact that a whole wing of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital fell into blackout last week. Let's come in here to talk about children in state care. Let's have a motion about Chloe Valentine and how the South Australian state Labor government failed her and hundreds like her—let's have a motion on that. Let's talk about Oakden and how we failed some of the most vulnerable older people in our state—deathly silence. Let's come in and talk about the Gillman land deal, which a justice of the Supreme Court of South Australia regarded as 'highly unusual'. You won't hear any of that, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let's hear a bit of it. (Time expired)

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.