Mr GILES (Scullin) (11:05): 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. Mr Conroy: Incredible! Mr GILES: 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— Mr GILES: 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. Ms Henderson: That's a ridiculous thing to say. Mr GILES: The minister will be able to account for himself if he wishes to make a contribution. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): The member for Corangamite will sit there quietly. Ms Henderson interjecting— Mr GILES: 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— Mr Pasin: Every school in Barker gets more—every school. Mr GILES: 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.