Education and Child Development Department

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (15:33): My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Child Development. Does the government accept the view that sacking people in the education department will provide better support for principals?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Education and Child Development) (15:34): I thank the member for Ashford for her question. There was a survey released this week discussing factors that impact on principals' workloads, and there is no doubt that principals in our schools do have a challenging job. We want to ensure that they have the supports they need to get on with their very important work. Public servants help provide front-line support to our schools. They can include psychologists and speech pathologists who help our schoolchildren with difficulties. They include financial support officers who help to relieve the burden on our principals and teachers. Just over a month ago, on the issue of improving teacher performance, The Advertiser reported comments that the way to improve it was, again, to sack more teachers.

This government does not accept the proposition that any and every issue can be resolved by simply sacking more and more people. This government believes in investing in our schools and investing in our children. I think I recall the Prime Minister saying that money matters when it comes to education. However, now, of course, the federal government is refusing to honour the full six years of our signed Gonski agreement, with South Australian schools standing to lose $335 million in just two years. That would assist our principals enormously.

Using the electorate of Fisher as an example, it looks like facing an indicative loss of more than $5 million in funding, resources and support. That is for the schools in Fisher alone. Reynella East College will suffer the largest loss of $2.1 million in two years for one school, for students and teachers and the principal at Reynella East College. Schools in southern Adelaide stand to lose $45 million, or the equivalent of more than 500 SSOs.

The SPEAKER: Minister, the question was about sacking.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Yes, that's right, sir.

The SPEAKER: This is about cuts in expenditure which would lead to redundancies, not sackings.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: No, sir, this is about support for principals. What I am saying is that, when our principals are facing cuts to the tune of $335 million, when one school in Fisher looks like losing $2.1 million, that does not support the principals in our schools. What we have is the federal Liberal government dishonouring the Gonski agreement. This Liberal government is not standing up for—

The SPEAKER: Point of order.

Ms CHAPMAN: I second your objection; namely, the relevance now. The question was very clear about a response to the sacking of bureaucrats and principals' autonomy; nothing to do with the assertions about what is happening—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Read your question.

The SPEAKER: The deputy leader will be seated. I would ask the minister to respond to the question which is: does the government accept the view that sacking people in the education department will provide better support to principals? That is presumably the discretion to sack.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: No, sir, it is not the discretion to sack.

The SPEAKER: No?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: There are two proposals that have been flagged in The Advertiser by the member for Unley: that when teachers are underperforming we need to sack them; when principals have workload issues we sack the people who are employed to help them.

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order, sir.

The SPEAKER: Point of order.

Mr WILLIAMS: The minister has just revealed that the question is founded on an article in The Advertiser and I believe it is out of order to ask questions—

The SPEAKER: No, it would only be out of order to ask if the report in the media were true. Minister.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Thank you, sir. If I were asked that question my answer would be no, it is not true; that is not how you support principals. What you do is to have people to support the principals and do the work in our schools, and for them to be able to do that you have to fund them properly, and we have an opposition here that will not support—

The SPEAKER: No, minister, we are not interested—

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: —our schools having the money they were promised.

The SPEAKER: Would the minister be seated. The minister is not responsible for the state opposition.

Mr GARDNER: Point of order, sir: page 289 of Erskine May describes that it is not just asking whether something is true but asking a minister to comment on a report in the press is out of order.

The SPEAKER: The question did not ask the minister to comment.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The minister is called to order, and the deputy leader is warned for the first time. Member for Hammond.