Violet loves attending her local state school, but some fear Queensland kids like her will be forced into ‘segregated' education
As well as music, she's into swimming and loves being around people.
Just like her big brother before her, Violet attends the primary school nearest her home in Yeppoon on the central Queensland coast. As with most students, Violet's education has had its ups and downs.
Sign up: AU Breaking News email
But this year, grade 5, has been 'a stellar, standout year', her mum, Shalee Gregson-Quinn, says. 'She's got a teacher who really understands that Violet's got a right to be there, that she will have a superior education by being there.'
Given that Violet goes to a state school, one might think that right is assumed. But it is not always so for kids like Violet.
'It's just a by-the-way thing, but Violet has Down's syndrome,' her mother says.
Which is what makes it so special that this vibrant young girl is surrounded by classmates who also see her disability as just a by-the-way thing – and a teacher, in Angela Hinds, who holds high expectations for Violet and works hard to ensure that she is 'included and engaged and happy'.
Because those expectations help instil in Violet aspirations of the kind of 'ordinary life' that many Australians will take for granted: the chance to pursue meaningful work, to travel, to form relationships and make friends.
'It is life changing for a parent to feel that someone is so invested in your child's progress,' Gregson-Quinn says.
So the community resources consultant is 'extremely disheartened' by a government announcement that she fears will mean many other young Queenslanders will miss out on an education like Violet's.
In handing down its budget last month, the Liberal National party's (LNP) first since unseating Labor after a decade in power, the government announced what it claims is the 'largest special school investment in history', with a pledge to build six new special schools.
This marked a significant change in direction from the 2018 high-water mark of a policy of including students with disabilities in mainstream schools, set out by then education minister Kate Jones, which advocates hailed as world leading.
It is not just Gregson-Quinn dismayed by the move – the Australian disability discrimination commissioner, Rosemary Kayess, urged the LNP to 'scrap' its plan to build more 'segregated schools' on Thursday.
'It is deeply concerning that the Queensland government is blatantly ignoring all the evidence and expert advice in relation to the significant benefits of inclusive education for people with disability,' Kayess said.
But, for the LNP, this investment in bricks and mortar is driven by at least two imperatives: one practical and one ideological.
All six new schools will be built near existing special schools in south east Queensland growth suburbs, such as Coomera, that have seen enrolments rise in recent years. The former Labor government actually strayed from its inclusion policy and built a special school in Coomera, which opened in 2022. Its enrolment has more than doubled: from 134 to 280 students.
'Special school enrolments have increased by more than 38 percent since 2019 and we cannot ignore the growing demand from parents and carers who want to send their child to a special school,' the education minister, John-Paul Langbroek, said in a statement.
But the new schools are not just a response to numbers – they reflect a guiding philosophy of this conservative government.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
The premier, David Crisafulli, said earlier this month that he acknowledged the 'different views' on educating children with disabilities, but told the press he 'wholeheartedly' believed in his government's policy shift.
'I really do; I believe in it for those kids and, ultimately, I believe in choice,' Crisafulli said. 'Everything I always do is about giving choice to an individual, and I think we have a real lack of special schools in this state.
'But, overwhelmingly, when I speak to teachers and when I speak to parents of special needs children, they want that choice – and we are going to give it to them.'
Born profoundly deaf, Prof Alastair McEwin was one of six commissioners who handed down the final disability royal commission report in 2023, after four years of inquiry.
McEwin has repeatedly said he never had a parent tell him they chose a special school – instead, they had to 'concede that mainstream schools cannot or will not support their child'.
McEwin labelled Queensland's special school build 'alarming'. He was one of three commissioners to recommend they be gradually, but entirely, phased out of Australia.
The commission, however, was evenly split on this matter. Its chair and two other commissioners recommended an alternative approach in which special schools be relocated 'within or in close proximity to mainstream schools', suggesting instead a number of ways through which the different cohorts could interact.
The complexity of the debate is encapsulated in a statement from the Queensland Teachers' Union president, Cresta Richardson, who said state schools were 'proud to be leaders in the area of inclusion', but that 'parents and students who need to, should have access to special schools'.
'No two students are the same, and the expectations of parents can vary greatly from school to school,' Richardson said.
'The mainstream inclusion model does come with significant challenges and additional workload for teachers and school leaders, workload that requires training, resourcing, and funding.'
Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Prof Linda Graham agreed that if systems weren't in place to support teachers to include students with disabilities into their classrooms, the result could be 'mayhem'.
But the director of QUT's Centre for Inclusive Education said that 'pouring money' into the physical infrastructure of segregation reduced the incentive to make mainstream schools inclusive.
'We've been working very hard since 2018 to make this happen in Queensland, with reducing commitment from political leaders,' Graham said.
'Now they are just going to pull the rug out from underneath.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
8 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Huge '$25 cap' cost of living change to help millions of Aussies pay for an everyday staple
Australians will pay no more than $25 for selected medicines for the first time in more than 20 years under a proposal to be brought before parliament. It will be the second cap on medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) introduced by the Albanese government in three years, after it cut the maximum price of PBS prescriptions from $42.50 to $30. 'The size of your bank balance shouldn't determine the quality of your health care,' Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said. 'My government will continue to deliver cost-of-living relief for all Australians.' PBS medicines would be capped at $7.70 for pensioners and concession card holders until 2030. The bill's introduction is largely a formality, with its passage through the lower house all but assured thanks to Labor's massive 94-seat majority in the 150-seat House of Representatives. The election promise is the Albanese government's next priority after it introduced childcare safety and HECS debt reduction legislation. Federal Labor has been talking up plans to strengthen the PBS amid concerns the scheme will be targeted as a bargaining chip in US trade negotiations to ward off threatened pharmaceutical tariffs. Albanese has repeatedly said the scheme was not up for negotiation. Australia eased its biosecurity restrictions on US beef imports last week, but the prime minister has denied the move was linked to US trade talks. He noted the decision followed a 10-year review of Australian biosecurity rules. Beyond new legislation, conflict in the Middle East will likely prompt fierce debate on the parliamentary floor after Albanese said Israel had breached international law by blocking the flow of food aid into Gaza. 'Quite clearly, it is a breach of international law to stop food being delivered, which was a decision that Israel made in March,' Albanese told ABC's Insiders on Sunday. He stopped short of saying Australia would join France in recognising a Palestinian state, but said his government would decide at 'an appropriate time'. 'Hamas can have no role in a future state,' he said. 'Hamas are a terrorist organisation who I find, their actions are abhorrent.' Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Michaelia Cash said Albanese failed to adequately condemn the role of the group in the ongoing conflict. The government is also likely to come under pressure regarding transparency when parliament resumes, after a Centre for Public Integrity probe revealed only a quarter of freedom of information request responses returned by the government in 2023-24 were un-redacted. By comparison, the Morrison government returned almost half of its FOI requests as complete documents in 2021/22.
Reuters
8 minutes ago
- Reuters
EU's pledge for $250 billion of US energy imports is delusional
LAUNCESTON, Australia, July 28 (Reuters) - There are strong echoes of Donald Trump's failed trade deal with China from his first term as U.S. president in the framework agreement reached with the European Union. Trump and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the deal for a 15% tariff on U.S. imports of EU goods at the U.S. leader's golf course in Scotland on Sunday. But more important than the 15% tariff rate was the apparent commitment by the EU to massively ramp up energy imports from the United States. The agreement calls for EU imports of U.S. energy, which currently are mainly crude oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG), of $250 billion a year for three years. This is a delusional level of imports that the EU has virtually no chance of meeting, and one that U.S. producers would also struggle to supply. Even if the EU did manage somehow to boost its energy imports from the United States to the $250 billion a year mark, it would also prove massively disruptive for energy flows around the rest of the world. The numbers show the scale of the challenge. The 28 members of the EU imported 3.38 billion barrels of seaborne crude oil in 2024, according to data compiled by energy analysts Kpler. Assuming the 2025 volume stays the same and the price paid per barrel averages around $70, this means the EU will pay about $236.6 billion for its crude. The EU's imports from the United States were 573 million barrels in 2024, which if replicated this year would be valued at around $40.1 billion. For LNG, the EU imported 82.68 million metric tons in 2024, which would have cost around $51.26 billion assuming an average price of around $12 per million British thermal units (mmBtu). Imports of the super-chilled fuel from the United States were 35.13 million tons in 2024, worth about $21.78 billion. The EU also buys coal from the United States, the bulk being higher-value metallurgical coal used to make steel. Total EU imports of metallurgical coal in 2024 were worth $6.72 billion, assuming an average price of $200 per ton, with those from the United States valued at $2.67 billion. Putting together the value of EU imports of U.S. crude oil, LNG and metallurgical coal gives a 2024 total of around $64.55 billion. This is about 26% of the $250 billion the EU is supposed to spend on U.S. energy a year under the framework agreement. If the EU did ramp up its imports of U.S. crude, LNG and metallurgical coal to $250 billion, it would account for 85% of its total spending on those energy commodities. The United States exported 1.45 billion barrels of crude in 2024, according to Kpler, which would be worth $101.5 billion at a price of $70 a barrel. U.S. shipments of LNG were 87.05 million tons in 2024, which would be worth about $54 billion at an average price of $12 per mmBtu. The U.S. exported 51.53 million tons of metallurgical coal in 2024, worth $10.3 billion at an average price of $200 a ton. Putting together the value of all three energy commodities gives a total of $165.8 billion, meaning that even if the EU bought the entire volume it would still fall well short of the $250 billion. The scale of the delusion probably exceeds what Trump and China agreed in their so-called Phase 1 trade deal in December 2019, under which China was supposed to buy $200 billion of additional U.S. energy by the end of 2021. The reality is that China never even came close to buying that level, and its imports of U.S. energy didn't even reach what they were before Trump launched his first trade war in 2017. There are a few caveats when looking at the framework agreement between Trump and Von der Leyen. The first is that not all the details are known and the $250 billion of energy is also said to include nuclear fuel, although this will only be a small value even if included. The second is the deal will probably include refined fuels, with U.S. exports to the EU of products such as diesel, being almost 110 million barrels in 2024, worth about $10.9 billion assuming a price of $100 a barrel. But it's still clear that the commitment to buy $250 billion in U.S. energy is completely unrealistic and unachievable. The smart people in the room must know this, begging the question as to why agree to what is obviously a ridiculous number? What happens when the inevitable failure is realised? Perhaps the EU is hoping for the same outcome as China did with the first trade war with Trump in 2019. Run down the clock, talk nice, and hope the next U.S. president is easier to deal with. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X, opens new tab. The views expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.
The Guardian
38 minutes ago
- The Guardian
UN climate chief warns Australia not to pick a ‘bog standard' 2035 carbon emissions target
The UN's climate chief has declared Australia's 2035 emissions target will define the country's future, and urged the Albanese government to not pick a 'bog-standard' number but to 'go for what's smart by going big'. Speaking in Sydney on Monday, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change executive secretary, Simon Stiell, cast the government's decision on the target – due by September – as the country's 'one shot' to build an 'on-ramp to the Asian clean tech boom', create hundreds of thousands of jobs and ensure the country's economic security and regional influence. The government is being heavily lobbied by industry and climate-focused organisations as it waits on advice about the 2035 target from the Climate Change Authority, a government agency led by chair Matt Kean, a former NSW Liberal treasurer and energy minister. Stiell, a former minister in the Grenadian government, did not say what the target should be, but said the decision was more than 'just the next policy milestone'. He said climate policy debates could be 'complex and contentious', but urged the country to not 'settle for what's easy'. 'If those debates deliver an ambitious, all-economy plan with public backing and political backbone then, whatever the naysayers might say, every hard-fought inch will be worth it,' he said at an event hosted by the Smart Energy Council, a clean energy industry organisation. 'Bog standard is beneath you … Go for what will build lasting wealth and national security. Go for what will change the game and stand the test of time.' Sign up: AU Breaking News email The Climate Change Authority last year said a preliminary assessment of scientific, economic, technological and social evidence suggested a target of cutting national emissions by at least 65% and up to 75% by 2035 compared with 2005 levels would be ambitious but achievable. Some organisations, including the Climate Council, the Australian Council of Social Service and the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, argue Australia should be aiming to reach net zero emissions by 2035 if it is to play its part in keeping global heating as close to 1.5C as possible – a goal enshrined in the legally binding 2015 Paris agreement. Some business groups, including mining company Fortescue, have locked behind a campaign for a minimum 75% reduction target. They face opposition from other industry lobbyists that suggest the government should set a target that would do little more than the legislated 2030 goal of a 43% cut. The Coalition is considering whether it will go further and abandon its support for reaching net zero emissions by 2050. The former Nationals leader, Barnaby Joyce, has tabled a private member's bill that would abolish nearly all of the country's climate policies and commitments, including the net zero target. Stiell said he believed Australians knew unchecked climate change was 'an economic wrecking ball', and that climate disasters were 'already costing Australian homeowners $4bn a year – and that figure is only going one way'. He cited analysis that found the country could lose $6.8tn in GDP by 2050, and living standards could fall by more than $7,000 per person a year. But he said the 'global clean energy race' was under way, with trillions of dollars at stake, and with China and India investing in renewables at a level that was 'off the charts'. He said an ambitious target in Australia could 'anchor future industries – green hydrogen, clean metals, critical minerals – in policies that give investors confidence, give communities certainty [and] create good jobs paying good wages'. He said it would send a message 'so clear the world can't miss it – this country is open for clean investment, trade and long-term partnerships'. Stiell is in Australia as part of a global trip as governments weigh new commitments for 2035 before the Cop30 climate conference in Brazil in November. He arrived in Sydney after visiting Indonesia and Turkey. Turkey is vying with Australia and the Pacific to host next year's Cop31 summit. A decision will need to be made by Cop30, at the latest. It had been expected last year, but the UN operates a consensus process and Turkey has remained in the race despite most members of the deciding group of Western Europe and Other States having declared their support for the Australia-Pacific bid. Stiell was due to visit Canberra on Tuesday for meetings, including with the climate change and energy minister, Chris Bowen. He will be joined in the capital by the prime minister of the low-lying Pacific atoll nation of Tuvalu, Feleti Teo, who is speaking at the Australian National University and meeting with the prime minister, Anthony Albanese. More than 80% of Tuvalu's population of about 11,000 have entered a ballot for an Australian permanent residency visa, established as part of a climate-related treaty between the two countries. Under the deal, 280 places will be offered to Tuvalu citizens in the first year.
