House debates

Thursday, 14 September 2006

Schools Assistance (Learning Together — Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2006

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 September, on motion by Ms Julie Bishop:

That this bill be now read a second time.

10:01 am

Photo of Jenny MacklinJenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | | Hansard source

The Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2006 is part of the federal government’s support for capital works in Australian schools. It provides funding for the three years beyond the current funding quadrennium to enable approval of capital works in advance of funding for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. These advance approval arrangements have been in place for many years, and the opposition will of course support the bill. We will always support increased funding for schools in need. The funding provided by the bill is for the general capital grants program. The Commonwealth also provides funding for capital projects in schools through its Investing in Our Schools program. As is well known, the government has allocated $1 billion of funding under this program for the 2005-08 quadrennium. I will come back to the Investing in Our Schools funding shortly.

I would like to make some observations about the general capital grants program, which is the focus of this bill. The Commonwealth has provided funding for school buildings and capital infrastructure in schools since the 1970s. Indeed, some would say that the Commonwealth has funded capital infrastructure since 1964, when the Menzies government introduced funding for science laboratories and equipment for secondary schools. This investment was significantly enhanced when the Whitlam Labor government introduced major capital funding for government and non-government schools in 1973. The Commonwealth’s capital grants program has continued since then, and in 2006 provides just over $350 million for government and non-government schools—that is in 2005 prices. This amount is supplemented each year by the building price index, which, according to the administrative guidelines for schools, ‘reflects movements in an index of building prices and an index of wage costs published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics’.

This bill extends capital funding for government schools for each of the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 and provides $249 million for each of these years, in 2005 prices. This is the same annual amount in real terms that the government has allocated for government schools since 1996, and it certainly continues to be an inadequate response to the critical needs of our government schools for quality buildings and other school infrastructure. The Commonwealth’s $249 million per annum represents just $110 for each of the 2.2 million students in government schools across Australia.

The latest National report on schooling in Australia says that per capita expenditure on capital infrastructure in government schools in 2005 was $493 per student. By comparison, total funding per student from all sources for independent schools in 2004—that is the latest available published data—was $1,971, more than four times the per student expenditure on capital works in public schools. The Commonwealth’s contribution from the general capital program is currently about 22 per cent of total funding for capital works and infrastructure in government schools. This proportion is down from average Commonwealth capital funding in government schools of 32 per cent over the years 1987 to 1997. The Commonwealth is clearly a major source of public funding for these purposes.

There continue to be very real concerns about the quality of capital infrastructure in our government schools. Professor Brian Caldwell, a regular consultant for the government and a contributor to the Menzies Research Centre, has researched the state of capital infrastructure in Australia’s government schools. His conclusions: that the overall state of facilities in government schools is, to use his word, ‘deplorable’. To quote him again:

We’ve got hundreds, if not thousands of schools that were built 30 or 40 years ago that have long passed their use-by date. They should be bulldozed and replaced by schools that are suited to learning in the 21st century.

The editorial response in the Age to Professor Caldwell’s earlier research was as follows:

According to one of Australia’s leading education authorities, Professor Brian Caldwell, the “deplorable” condition of government school buildings is having an adverse effect on the morale and wellbeing of teachers and students. Indeed, it would be surprising if it did not. We do not expect people in other professions to work in dingy, draughty, unheated environments, so why should we expect teachers and students to?

The Commonwealth’s response to this is $110 a student. There has been no increase in real terms to the general capital grants program for government schools since the Howard government came to office in 1996. It really is not good enough. Yes, it is true that the government has provided additional funding in this quadrennium, starting in 2005, for minor school projects under the Investing in Our Schools program. This funding is directed at small-scale projects and of course is very welcome. But it is not a strategic response to the fundamental needs for infrastructure renewal in our government schools. This would require a serious partnership between the Commonwealth and the states towards an agreed vision of capital infrastructure improvement over the years ahead.

Unfortunately, all we hear from this latest education minister is a repeat of the mantra adopted by her predecessors, Ministers Kemp and Nelson, that it is all the states’ fault. Of course state governments have to answer for their budgetary decisions and the quality of the facilities and services they provide. But the federal government also has to accept that it and it alone is responsible for its decisions on budgetary priorities when it comes to funding decent buildings in our government schools. It is clear that the provision of quality improvements in the capital infrastructure of government schools has been a very low priority for this government for 10 years.

The Minister for Education, Science and Training made much of the government’s schools funding record in the last federal budget. In the glossy that came along with the supplementary budget papers, she trumpeted the record $9.3 billion to be spent on government and non-government schools, noting that this represents a 158.2 per cent increase in funding since 1996. What the minister’s publicity does not say—of course, we are used to the sort of spin that does not tell the whole story from this government—is that virtually all of this increase was for real increases in recurrent funding for non-government schools, indexation of grants for cost increases and the Investing in Our Schools program. I say to the education minister: do not just blame the states; actually face up to your own responsibilities. If there is one thing the Australian people are absolutely fed up to the back teeth about, it is governments flicking responsibilities to other levels of government in our federal system rather than taking responsibility themselves.

Adequate capital facilities are not just about making schools and students comfortable, even though that is important. We know from research that there is a causal link between building quality and design and student outcomes. The former head of the OECD Program on Educational Building, Dr Kenn Fisher, reported in his digest for the former Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs that research clearly demonstrates that student academic achievement improves with improved building condition and that factors such as lighting, air quality, temperature and acoustics have an effect on student behaviour and learning.

Fisher reports on studies that demonstrate the link between building age and student achievement. These studies show that students in newer buildings achieved academic results that were some seven per cent higher than similar students in older buildings with poorer maintenance, lighting, temperature control and floor coverings. Fisher’s work also refers to the importance of such factors as acoustics, colour and furniture design for students’ health, comfort and learning. UNESCO research also advises on the effects of unsuitable furniture on students’ discomfort, backache, concentration span, writing difficulties and learning opportunities. One of the key messages of this research as summarised by Fisher in his paper for the minister’s department is that governments are underestimating the effects of school design on student and teacher performance.

The Australian based Education Foundation has taken up these themes in its recent paper New spaces for learning. The foundation points out the significance of students’ learning environments and the educational importance of the quality and design of school buildings. I quote from the foundation’s paper:

Public schools are public places with which people form relationships full of meaning, memories and values, yet in Australia, school design arguably remains the most neglected aspect of public education reform. From the outside, the typical Australian public school is fenced, inward looking and unwelcoming. On the inside, it is industrial and inflexible ... These buildings operate as a hidden curriculum, transmitting messages about how and for whom learning takes place. They work against innovative teaching, restrict student learning, inhibit greater connection between the school and its community, perpetuate a negative public perception of the school and in worst cases, give the message that they are poor resources for an undervalued community.

Personally, I do not know that I would go quite as far as those remarks, because it is the case that there are some excellent and well-designed public schools and some of our older public schools have been innovatively renovated. But, nevertheless, there is an underlying truth in that quote from the foundation’s paper.

The Fisher paper has been influential in many other countries and is now a reference point for school authorities in England, Scotland, the United States and New Zealand, as well as in some of our Australian states. But, unfortunately, it would seem that it is not a reference point for the government that actually sponsored the paper—our federal government. The Howard government, unfortunately, has done nothing more with its commissioned research than put it on the department’s website—a virtual but not very virtuous response. That seems to be its preferred strategy.

We hear it time and time again from the minister: let somebody else—preferably the states, from her point of view—take the necessary action. When it comes to the fundamental capital needs of schools, this federal government’s key strategy is basically to offer advice—and the advice it commissioned is good advice—but then blame other people, mainly the state governments, for any deficiencies. I must say that it would be better if the minister could just take even half an hour out from threatening state authorities with withholding her funding if they do not comply with her latest thought bubble or media release and instead took a bit of time to actually read her own commissioned paper.

Undoubtedly, the minister will respond that all this money has been put into Investing in Our Schools, and it is true that a substantial amount of money has been put into both our government and non-government schools through this program. But, as I said, it is really in the main for minor capital projects, and that is particularly the case in our government schools. It is valuable funding. It has enabled our school communities to fund projects of up to $150,000, and many of those have been useful. However, the maximum funding of $150,000 cannot deliver on the fundamental needs for improvements in school building quality and design in our government schools. The $150,000 is the maximum amount of funding available to a school. To date, the average grant seems to be lower than that, and I would appreciate it if the minister, when she is summing up the debate, could give us more recent information on the range and average grants made under the program.

The Investing in Our Schools program, as we all know, is due to finish at the end of 2007. That is not very far away, and school communities and authorities are facing uncertainty about the future of this program. This bill contains no advance approval opportunities for the Investing in Our Schools projects. School communities would be greatly helped by early advice on the future of this program as many valuable projects will be jeopardised as a result of the uncertainty about the program beyond 2008.

The previous amendment bill, the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill 2006, redistributed the funding for government schools so that more than $500 million will be allocated by the end of this year and all of the funding from the Investing in Our Schools program committed in 2007. That means no funds are available for 2008, and there is no sign of anything for 2009, 2010 or 2011. However, there will be funds for the general capital grants element, which is a smaller program. So there is no advance approval for the Investing in Our Schools funding beyond 2007. For the health of our schools, I say to the minister: it is time we had a very clear indication about whether or not this program is going to continue so that schools can plan for the future.

This bill also allocates just over $86 million for capital works in non-government schools for 2009, 2010 and 2011. This is down from almost $102 million in 2006 and $90 million in 2008. These are projected figures and, once again, they are in 2005 prices. The Bills Digest for this legislation explains that the reduction in funding for non-government schools arises from the lapsing of two program elements for those schools. Firstly, the government has augmented the base funding for non-government schools by around $10 million a year for a number of fixed-term elements, such as hostels and technology infrastructure for Indigenous students. That would have ended after the 1996 election. This funding lapses in 2007 and its funding beyond then is subject to review.

Secondly, the government introduced an additional $17 million in capital funding for non-government schools in the Northern Territory in 2004. This funding was provided in recognition of the fact that none of the Catholic systemic schools in the Northern Territory received increases in general recurrent funding when the previous minister announced the Catholic systemic schools would be brought into the SES funding scheme from 2005. The fact is that all of the Catholic systemic schools in the Northern Territory had to be categorised as maintained or they would have lost funding if they were funded at their assessed SES rate.

This situation is not much better for all of the non-government schools in the Territory. There are currently 30 non-government schools in the Northern Territory. Of these, only eight are funded at their assessed SES rate. The remaining 22 schools are categorised as ‘funding maintained’, or ‘maintained Catholic’ to preserve their entitlement to continued funding at their 2000 rate and ongoing indexation against increases in average government schools recurrent costs.

This state of affairs says much about the policy fragility of the government’s general recurrent funding scheme. It is a scheme that is unable to cater for the real needs of schools such as those in the Northern Territory. So we would certainly hope that the minister’s current and closed review of the SES funding scheme would resolve this situation for non-government schools in the Territory. It says even more about the government’s piecemeal and stopgap approach to policy development. Its response to the failure of the funding scheme for general recurrent grants to non-government schools in the Northern Territory was to just plaster it over with some funding for capital works in those schools. Of course, this patching-up is not going to last. The chickens have now come home to roost in this bill. The compensatory funding for capital works in the Northern Territory will end in 2008 and the funding levels for non-government schools will go down from $102 million in 2006 to $86 million in 2009 and beyond. This bandaid approach does need attention from the minister. It needs much more strategic and integrated thinking both for recurrent and capital funding into the next quadrennium.

There is one final point I want to make on accountability. To say the least, accountability for the capital grants program remains thin. Decisions about the projects to be approved by the minister under the capital grants program are made by the relevant school authorities: the state and territory departments for government schools; and the Catholic and independent schools’ block grant authorities for non-government schools. These authorities make their decisions against guidelines issued by the minister’s department. These guidelines require the authorities to recommend projects that are consistent with the Commonwealth’s objectives, and these include the specific objective that grants would ‘provide and improve school capital infrastructure, particularly for the most educationally disadvantaged students’. So far, so good.

Labor supports the emphasis on need in the guidelines and the devolution of administrative responsibilities to the states and the territories. In fact, it was a former Labor government that established the block grant authorities for non-government school capital grants. But the objectives for the capital grants program are not covered by legislation. There is no legislative provision that requires the program to give priority to educational need. This is left just to administrative guidelines and ministerial discretion. I would say to the minister that this should be rectified in the legislation for the new funding quadrennium.

Where, you might ask, is the evidence that the capital works program funded by the Commonwealth is actually meeting its objectives, especially the priority for educationally disadvantaged students? The latest formal evaluation of the capital grants program appears to be the 1999 report of the department’s research and evaluation branch called Capital matters: an evaluation of the Commonwealth’s capital grants programme for schools. Well, 1999 is quite a long time ago. Even so, that report concluded that even then there was an urgent need for a national picture of school infrastructure. In other words, the Commonwealth did not have then, and certainly does not have now, enough information about capital needs to make a proper assessment of the program’s impact and to provide a sound basis for future funding decisions. This report back in 1999 also recommended greater clarity in program objectives, noting in particular that the focus on educational disadvantage requires a stronger set of criteria. I quote from the report:

Assessment of educational disadvantage should be re-focused on more immediate assessments of needs for facilities (based on some benchmark or standard) and on whether or not a particular school has the financial capacity to undertake the project without assistance.

Labor agrees with these findings. Assessing need for Commonwealth funding should be based on a relevant standard and should take into account the resources available to a school.

I have read the current accountability requirements for Commonwealth capital grants, and the specific requirements go to financial accountability procedures while the educational accountabilities are swept up in the requirements for the general recurrent and targeted programs. Unfortunately, there is no mention of the issues raised in the 1999 evaluation. Again, the Commonwealth’s main response appears to have been to put its report on the department’s website. Whether or not it has been read by the minister, who would know? Certainly, it has not been taken seriously and is not reflected in this bill or in the government’s policy.

Another accountability issue is: where is the information on the projects that have been funded and how do they meet Commonwealth objectives? To my knowledge, the last available public report on the schools that have benefited from Commonwealth capital funding is the department’s report to the parliament on expenditures under section 116 of the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 2000 for the 2004 calendar year. I certainly expect the report for 2005 to be tabled in the parliament in the near future. It would be helpful if the minister could indicate when that will happen.

The report sets out the Commonwealth’s objectives for the capital grants program, noting in particular that the ‘determined priority for funding of schools’ capital projects is based primarily on the basis of the relative educational disadvantage of students’. But, as I said, reporting on funded projects is, to say the least, vague about how these objectives and priorities were met. The descriptions of the projects make it pretty hard to make that assessment. They refer to things such as ‘learning areas’, ‘walkways’, ‘hospitality areas’, ‘parking’, ‘landscaping’, ‘bathroom fittings’ and ‘hard surface games courts’. There is no mention of funding benchmarks or how the projects actually meet needs criteria.

We know that the minister is very keen, copying the previous minister, on plain English reporting. She seems to go from one requirement to another on this matter. I would suggest to her that she actually impose this plain English reporting on herself and on how her own projects meet Commonwealth objectives. Could we have some plain English reporting that actually enables the public to see whether or not needs criteria are being addressed by the funding allocations? The grants provided to the individual schools listed in the report may or may not meet the needs of educationally disadvantaged students, but that certainly cannot be assessed from the information provided by the major accountability report to the parliament. So some plain English reporting by the minister to the parliament would be helpful. We also do not have any information about the educational outcomes that have improved as a consequence of the Commonwealth’s capital funding. Of course, we cannot say anything about whether or not any of the projects that have been funded have necessarily been bad. I am not suggesting that. My point is that the process is certainly not transparent.

In conclusion, I reiterate that we will support this legislation to allow funding proposals for capital works in schools in the three years after the current quadrennium. But I want to say again that this bill does nothing to tackle the issues that really need to be addressed: the significant capital needs of public schools, the absence of a government commitment to continue the Investing in Our Schools program beyond 2007, the funding disruptions to elements of the capital grants program for non-government schools and the absence of accountability criteria and arrangements that demonstrate the effectiveness of the Commonwealth’s capital funding for schools. I certainly call on the government to attend to these very serious matters.

10:29 am

Photo of Don RandallDon Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak today on the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2006. At the outset, I would like to say: thank goodness the coalition government won the last election in 2004, because, if we had not won the election in 2004, we would have had placed upon us, from the Socialist Left of the Victorian Labor Party, all of those ideological problems that they brought to us in terms of the school hit list, which the representative opposite—

Photo of Jenny MacklinJenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This bill is about capital funding; it has nothing to do with the matters that the member is raising.

Photo of Ian CausleyIan Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

The member will come back to the terms of the bill.

Photo of Don RandallDon Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

The bill is about education and funding for schools. With regard to funding for schools, as we know, the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party had a hit list, along with Mr Latham.

Photo of Jenny MacklinJenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is entirely about capital funding—funding for buildings of schools. You should bring the member back to order.

Photo of Ian CausleyIan Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

I think the member for Canning is addressing the funding issue.

Photo of Don RandallDon Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Capital funding is the nature of the bill and, as we said, we do not want any schools on the hit list. In fact, the Australian electorate rejected having any schools on any hit list.

Photo of Jenny MacklinJenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Once again, the member is not referring to the matters that are related to this bill.

Photo of Ian CausleyIan Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Photo of Jenny MacklinJenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: this bill has nothing to do—

Photo of Ian CausleyIan Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

The member for Jagajaga, I have ruled.

Photo of Don RandallDon Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

At the beginning of addressing this bill, I point out that thank goodness the coalition won the election of 2004, because we would have been subject to these sorts of ideologically driven nasties from the opposition had they come to government. But the purpose of this bill today, as we know—and the member just said that the opposition supports it—is to address a number of issues. The issues—

Photo of Kim WilkieKim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

The honourable member for Canning will resume his seat. Is the honourable member seeking to ask a question?

Photo of Jill HallJill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

No. I am actually going to speak to the point of order that the shadow minister spoke to. I can see absolutely no connection whatsoever between this bill and the issues that the member for Canning is raising. He is talking about nasties prior to the last election when we are talking about capital works. Mr Deputy Speaker, I really ask you to draw him to the bill.

Photo of Don RandallDon Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker—

Photo of Ian CausleyIan Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

I am quite happy to rule, and I think you will be pleased with the ruling. Having only just taken the chair, I am unable to establish at this point in time whether the member for Canning is relating to the bill or not. I understand from Deputy Speaker Causley, who was in the chair, that the debate has been quite wide ranging, so I will allow some latitude. But I will be listening carefully to the member for Canning during his contribution.

Photo of Don RandallDon Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

What I wish to raise, not as a point of order but as an observation, if you wish, is that the previous occupier of the chair just ruled on that point of order. However, as I said, the purpose of this bill is to do several things and it will be a wide-ranging debate. The wide-ranging debate will obviously address, for example, the provision of a new category of non-government school, which is going to be called a special assistance school. The reason for providing a special assistance school is that, currently, recurrent funding for non-government schools under the SES systems enables the maximum level of funding for those schools mainly catering for students with disabilities rather than students with social and emotional problems.

There is also the issue of schools which have serious problems with retaining students. We know the retention of students is the desirable outcome because, if students get a good education, they are able to benefit far greater in life by getting a better job and staying in a job, and their earning capacity is far greater. The creation of this new category of non-government school or special assistance school is something that is desirable because it helps schools that have fallen through the cracks in terms of the assessment model. I think it is great that those schools in need will get maximum general recurrent funding on that basis once this bill passes through these houses.

The bill also seeks to redistribute the funds in the Investing in Our Schools program as it applies to government schools, carrying over some of the 2005 funding and bringing forward the 2008 funding to 2006. We know why that is. I will address that shortly. It is because it is so popular. Every school in this country wants a piece of the Investing in Our Schools program. There would not be a member in the House of Representatives that has not been contacted by many of their schools, both government and non-government, who wish to avail themselves of those funds.

This bill also seeks to reallocate unspent tutorial vouchers, which we know have not been taken up at the rate that they might have been. It reallocates the availability of this tutorial voucher initiative into the 2006 year for the national project elements of the Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs program. That is a great idea because, firstly, we do not want people saying that we did not maintain the level of funding and, secondly, if there is a need then we want to see that funding maintained and going ahead.

The bill also inserts a new provision in the act to enable the minister to redistribute program funds between particular years by regulation rather than by legislative amendment. That gives the minister flexibility. We know that that flexibility comes with certain responsibilities, but the 2003 legislation allowed for disallowance mechanisms should they not be adhered to properly. Given the fact that this bill is deemed noncontroversial, that means that the opposition also agrees with that operation. Finally, this bill seeks to carry over to 2006 minor unspent 2005 funds for the national project elements of the Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs program and languages education.

The previous member endeavoured to say, as she always does, that this government’s commitment to educational funding in this country has diminished. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, since 1996 the Australian government has continued its trend of providing increased funding for schools education. In the 2006-07 year, nearly $9.3 billion will be provided in funding for both state government and non-government schools, representing a $760 million or 8.9 per cent increase in the funding from last year and—and here is the rub—a 158.2 per cent increase in funding since 1996. So when the opposition say that the federal government’s commitment to education in this country has been diminished, we know that the figures tell the truth. And the figures tell the truth by saying there has been a real increase of 158.2 per cent. So we stand proud on our commitment to both government and non-government education.

This is where I must give some background information in terms of the roles of the federal and state governments. There was a very good article written by Paul Kelly some years ago called ‘States Cry Wolf Over Public Funding’ that I recommend to anybody who wants to read an unbiased report. Nobody could call Paul Kelly, the national affairs writer of the Australian newspaper, anything but straight up and down. He pointed out quite clearly the obligations of the state governments and of the federal governments. We know that much of this has come about from a historical point of view. Since 1901, federal governments have gradually taken up the responsibility for the major funding of non-government schools. By their very name, the state governments have been responsible for the funding of state government schools.

Unfortunately, in this process, it seems that health and education suffer from this hybrid sort of funding mechanism in which both state and federal governments take some responsibility. There are always arguments at the margins about who should be paying more and who should be paying less. I am a product of a state government school. Please believe me: I am an enthusiastic product and supporter of state government schools. In fact, my whole family came through the North Merredin Primary School—whose anniversary I will be going to next year—and also through the Merredin high school. We all got a good education and unfortunately we all ended up as teachers, but that is a product of being in a small country town, I suppose.

State government schools do a fantastic job. The federal government puts more money into state government schools per capita than it puts into non-government schools. The opposition has a voracious ‘them and us’ mentality. The opposition always picks out the King’s School on the eastern seaboard as an example of a luxury school that gets too much funding.

My son goes to a state school, my wife teaches at a state school and my daughter goes to a non-government school—and I can assure you that a lot of the $14,000 a year I pay goes towards her education. Thank goodness she is finishing year 12 this year and the pain will stop! But one of the reasons why some non-government schools are able to provide so much more—and the previous speaker talked about the quality of the buildings being a significant factor in the quality of education for students across Australia—is that the parents pay the difference. Parents pay something like $4 billion a year out of their own pockets to support their children’s education in non-government schools. That is why they get quite a bit more opportunity in terms of the things that are available.

As much as it pains me to say it, we all pay—because we make choices. I am proud to say that the government I am a part of provides choice in education. We do not want to send all students to government schools and, of course, no-one would support the elitist attitude that everybody should go to non-government schools—and that includes Catholic schools. Right from the beginning, Catholic schools did not receive one cent in public funding. In fact, for years they were run almost as charities. Over time, the federal government picked up some of their funding and, as we know, we have now put them on an equal footing with all other non-government schools. That is only fair, because their parents pay taxes as well. Why shouldn’t you receive back a proportion of that tax if your children go to a Catholic school?

The whole capital grants program, as part of this legislation, should be endorsed, because the minister should be able to make long-term funding commitments outside the current triennium. We need to be able to predict funding for the years ahead, because there is a long lead time for capital funding in schools.

I have an anecdote to share with you. When I was sitting amongst the audience at one of the high schools in my electorate last year, the state member for Armadale, Alannah MacTiernan, who is also the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, stood up and said that the school was going to get $3 million in capital funding. I sat there thinking it was fantastic that the state government was going to come up with $3 million to do up this tired, old school. I found out about six months later that $2 million of that $3 million was federal government money—I had not been told. We give block grant contributions to education departments and they decide where they are going to spend the money.

Without the courtesy of letting the federal government know where the state government was going to spend the money, the local member and minister jumped up and, making a big person of herself, said, ‘We’re going to spend $3 million on your school.’ But she did not say, ‘By the way, we’re only putting in $1 million of that money.’ So I got myself into action and mailed all the people around that school to tell them who was actually giving the majority of that money and who was being disingenuous about how they were going to distribute the money. As a result, I will be opening the extensions to that school.

The protocol is that the federal member does the opening if the federal government puts in the majority of the money. I will be making sure that Cecil Andrews Senior High School makes sure the protocol is observed and that the state member, rather than being disingenuous, realises her role in the whole program. It is only proper. I attended an opening at Campbell Primary School in my electorate. The state government had contributed the majority of the money so, of course, the state member, Paul Andrews, took the lead that day—as he should have done. At the time, the Premier of Western Australia, Alan Carpenter, was the Minister for Education and Training. They made sure I sat in the back row and that any photos taken of me, the federal member, were not included in the coverage. That is how churlish Alan Carpenter was as state education minister. We will not be playing those sorts of games, but that is the mentality you have to deal with at the state level.

In the last few minutes left to me I would like to deal with the Investing in Our Schools program, which, we know, has been an outstanding program. Everybody wants to be involved in it. The funding goes directly to schools. But, because it goes straight into schools, we have a problem with the program in Western Australia, because the schools decide, through their state based authorities, who gets the funding. We have found that that is a problem in a few cases, particularly in outer metropolitan schools—such as Mandurah, which is a case in point in my electorate, and Falcon Primary School, which is a further case in point—where the schools determine what they would like and put that forward. Strangely enough, Falcon Primary School did not get all the things that they put in for, and the things they did not really strongly endorse they got. They then tried to work with the local member for Dawesville, Kim Hames, and me to try to reverse that. The minister of course said, ‘I have to take advice from the recommending body.’ So it is not a flawless program.

The previous speaker, the member for Jagajaga, tried to say that we need some commitments about this program extending past 2007. I do not have the authority to say whether it will or not, but I can be a Nostradamus on this issue and predict that, because of the absolute passion that the schools have for the Investing in Our Schools program, it will be carried on past 2007, because it fills a need. As a former schoolteacher, I can tell senators that, based on the years that the Labor Party ran the state government schools, you can always tell when they are in power, because the maintenance and the amenities stop. The paint starts peeling. The gutters start falling off. But when the coalition get into government they start spending the right amount of money on schools in making sure they are maintained properly et cetera.

The Investing in Our Schools program has been so popular that there is increasing response every time a round comes out and we are asked to provide funds towards the program. To give an example of some of the projects which have been outstanding in my electorate of Canning, out of the $28.4 million provided to Western Australia—not an insignificant amount of money—$10.6 million went to non-government schools. There was also the Canning Vale College, a government school, which received funding of $4 million, which is not insignificant, for stage 2 of the construction of a senior teaching block. That was part of the capital grants, not the Investing in Our Schools grants.

In terms of the Investing in Our Schools program, there were 77 applications received from Canning in the recent rounds. I am very keen on promoting the prospects of the schools in my area, because P&Cs cannot raise those amounts of money. If they need $15,000 or $20,000 for certain structures or technology, they cannot raise it. I come back to the point that the problem in Western Australia is that the state education department got a bit churlish and said, ‘We will take a handling fee of 11 per cent off you.’ That causes a lot of problems, because, if there is a $100,000 project and they take 11 per cent, the P&C has a real problem trying to raise the funds. The department also said, ‘You have to use the recommended contractors that we have at central office.’ If you are down in Mandurah and you have to use someone from Belmont it does not work because, No.1, they do not want the work as it is too far away and, No. 2, it is too expensive. But it is a great program and we want to see it keep going. The federal government’s commitment to funding in this area is outstanding and will be maintained. (Time expired)

10:49 am

Photo of Chris BowenChris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to make some relatively brief comments on this bill before the House. The Commonwealth provides around 30 per cent of the total funding of capital works in government schools, and this has been the case since the 1970s. The Whitlam government increased the amount of Commonwealth funding to government schools. Commonwealth funding has been a major source of funding to government schools since the 1970s or before.

Commonwealth funding as a percentage of the total capital works spending in government schools has fallen since this government came to office. There has been no increase in a general capital works program since 1996. If you listened to the daily rants of the Minister for Education, Science and Training in question time you would think that it was this government that started federal government funding of capital works in public schools or that they had dramatically increased the amount of capital works funding in Commonwealth schools. The opposite is the case, but you would not know that if you were a disinterested observer of question time. You would assume that it was this government that had invented it and it was this government that had increased it dramatically.

The Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2006 extends the funding under the general capital works program for 2009, 2010 and 2011. This is in accordance with normal practice and it has been the administrative arrangement for some decades. This allows for long-term programming, scheduling of works and efficient project management. I am confused as to why there is no similar bill coming forward for the Investing in Our Schools program. I was glad to hear that the member for Canning had promoted himself to minister for education and announced it was continuing, but it would be nice to hear it from the real minister for education.

Photo of Don RandallDon Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In terms of relevance and accuracy, I did not announce future funding; I speculated that that would be the case. It needs to be corrected.

Photo of Dick AdamsDick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Order! The member for Bowen.

Photo of Chris BowenChris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Thank you. I note that the member at the table indicated that the funding would be continuing, but it would be nice to hear an official announcement from the government. This would enable forward planning on behalf of the education bureaucracy and on behalf of schools themselves. Investing in Our Schools provides funding for minor but important works in schools. I have worked closely with several schools in my electorate, both government and non-government, to obtain that funding—as I am sure all honourable members on both sides have. Certainly I think I speak for all honourable members when I say that we will work to get funding under any project or program if it benefits schools in our area. While principals in my electorate have been frustrated with the administrative delays and problems, nevertheless we have been able to secure funding for some very worthwhile projects, and nobody is going to criticise that. But advance approval for the next three years might avoid some of the administrative hassles that we have seen and that have plagued this program.

There needs to be a serious national effort to upgrade the physical quality of our schools. This is not a measure for posturing. It is not something that should be used to score political points. This is something that all levels of government should be working together on. Parents do not expect their members of parliament and ministers of governments to be posturing on this. They do not expect to see question time used as a great political point-scoring exercise. They expect the Commonwealth minister and the state ministers to sit down together and to look at the extent of the problem of the lack of capital funding of government schools.

Professor Brian Caldwell, the former dean of education at the University of Melbourne and a consultant to the Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training has said ‘these schools should be bulldozed and replaced by schools that are suited to learning in the 21st century.’ I do not say it is the Commonwealth’s job to fix that in its entirety. It is not the states’ job to fix it in its entirety. But why don’t we have a summit on this? Why don’t we have a summit about the state of capital works in our schools? Why doesn’t the federal minister sit down with the state ministers and have a summit on that? Why don’t we see some constructive work going into it? Instead we see this constant and consistent opportunism and point-scoring from the Commonwealth. We had a history summit. I do not have a problem with that, but why don’t we have a summit about capital works in schools? Why don’t we have a summit about the physical quality of our schools? I think the opposition would join with the government and congratulate them if they did that, and we would see a bipartisan effort.

I think the general reputation of people on both sides of parliament—state and federal—would be improved in the community if there were a bit of commonality and if the community saw us working to improve the schools, both public and private, that our kids go to. If there were a bit of that, the reputation of the government might improve and parents might say, ‘At least they are getting along together and working together to improve the quality of the physical being of our schools.’

As I said, this is part of the consistent opportunism we see from the government on this matter. We saw it in the history summit. I speak as somebody who thinks that history should be taught as a discrete and individual unit in every state. It should be taught as a stand-alone subject. I support the concept of a history summit, but why were the states not invited to the history summit? We have a situation where the Commonwealth minister holds a summit and does not invite the state ministers who actually have carriage of the delivery of the program. This is the sort of non-cooperative opportunism that we see from the government. We see it again with reports. We have seen this minister and the previous minister threatening to withhold funding from the states unless they agree with the federal government’s position on reports.

I do not have a problem with plain English reporting. I think there should be plain English reporting in high schools. I do not have a problem with A to E gradings in high schools. I think we could sit down with the states and talk about whether it is really fair to say to a five- or six-year-old, ‘You are going to get an F.’ We should discuss whether that is really the way to encourage them to do better and whether we can come up with plain English reporting which does not pigeonhole kids as young as five and six into being failures. If the federal and state ministers actually sat down together and worked through some of those issues, I think we could get a result through consensus. I think A to E is appropriate for high schools but I think it is inappropriate for primary schools—certainly for the early years of primary schools. If the ministers sat down together with the stakeholders, we could see some results. But we see this opportunism and this constant narking from the Commonwealth government.

We saw it again this week when it came to training. Honourable members may not have all seen it, but the minister for education announced that, unless states sent their teachers for more training, funding would be withheld. Again we see this belligerent attitude. Nobody is opposed to more training for teachers.

Photo of Maria VamvakinouMaria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Neither are teachers.

Photo of Chris BowenChris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Teachers are not opposed to more training for teachers. When I heard that announcement, I thought, ‘That is a lovely announcement. Who is going to teach the kids when the teachers are off doing all this extra training? Where are the resources coming from for the extra teachers to cover the load?’

I thought the member for Jagajaga, in her contribution this morning, expressed it very well. She said, ‘These are the minister’s thought bubbles.’ The minister has a thought bubble and the states are threatened: ‘Unless you do what I say, your funding is going to be withdrawn.’ We see it with the history summit, we see it with reports, we see it this week with training and of course we see it with capital works.

The Commonwealth could be doing something constructive about the drift of students out of public education. Instead of saying, ‘We are going to fund private schools to a greater and greater degree’—of course I support funding for private schools—why don’t we have a summit about the future of public education in this country? Why don’t we say, ‘Let’s look at some innovative things to rejuvenate public schools’ so that we have a genuine competition—for want of a better word—between government funded and private schools? Through competition, we will get much better educational outcomes and parents and children will be the winners.

I am going to be a little bit controversial here and say that I think there needs to be a debate in this country about charter schools, about public schools having their own charter, about parents having more of a say in running public schools. I go to schools in my electorate and ask, ‘How is the P&C going?’ Some say, ‘It is going great—we have got lots of members and we are raising lots of money.’ Others say, ‘Actually, our P&C has closed down—we can’t get parents to come.’ If parents felt that going to the P&C meant they had a stake in running the school—if they had a say on who the principal was going to be, if they had a say on the values of the school—we might see more parent involvement and we might see public education becoming more attractive to people who are moving to private education because of its values.

The honourable member for Canning said, ‘On this side we believe in choice.’  Newsflash: there have been Catholic and private schools in Australia for 150 years or more.

Photo of Don RandallDon Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I said that, you clown!

Photo of Chris BowenChris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Both sides agree with choice. When you are called a clown by the honourable member for Canning, you really know you are in big trouble.

Why not have a debate on charter schools in this country? The Commonwealth could initiate it. Charter schools have worked very well in places like Washington DC, where some of the most disadvantaged people in the community go to public schools. We have seen excellent educational results in charter schools.

Whenever you go to a school, as I am sure all honourable members would agree, you find energy and commitment. It does not matter how tired I am when I walk into a school—whether it be government or private—I always walk out feeling better, because teachers and students are dedicated and there is a lot of energy around. It is always an uplifting experience. If we had a proper debate and some trials of charter schools in this country, we could see a very good development in the reputation and governance of public schools.

I know that many people would be unhappy with that. I know, for example, that some elements of the teachers federation are unhappy with that. I know that some of the educational bureaucracies, both state and federal, are unhappy with that. And I am not here to defend every element of state education department bureaucracy. But, instead of wanting to score points off the states all the time, if the Commonwealth wanted to have a national dialogue, it could have a summit about the future of charter schools and it could have a summit about the capital funding of our government schools. It could sit down and make some progress in relation to the capital funding of our schools. Instead, we see the minister for education walking into question time every day and attempting to score points off the state governments. I have no doubt that, in state parliaments around the country, state ministers are walking in every day and criticising the Commonwealth government. I do not think that is particularly fruitful either. I do not think that is a particularly helpful way of engaging in the debate. We are seeing this constant carping and criticism, when we should be getting on with the job.

The government talks about the Investing in Our Schools program ad nauseam. As I have said before, we on this side of the House welcome any initiatives to improve capital funding for any school, particularly in our own areas. We will fight to get that funding. I have worked very hard with principals of both sorts of schools in my electorate to get funding. I have been on the phone to the department and the parliamentary secretary’s office—and I have to say that I have always had a good response from them and a good working relationship with them. But we see the government winding down the general capital funding in real terms. We have seen no increase in real terms in capital funding since 1996. We have seen the percentage of the Commonwealth contribution to general capital funding in public schools fall quite substantially over the last 10 years. Yes, some of that has been made up through the Investing in Our Schools program, and we welcome that. But let’s not claim that Investing in Our Schools is this new invention, that it is the first time the Commonwealth has ever been involved in funding the capital works program of government schools, because it is not. It has been happening for over 30 years.

In fairness—I always like to give credit where it is due—the government has commissioned a report. We have seen Professor Caldwell’s recommendation that schools should be bulldozed and replaced by schools that are suited to learning in the 21st century. Nobody has suggested that that is going to happen overnight—of course it is not. It is going to take years to happen. I have seen estimates of billions of dollars for doing that. No government has the resources to do that quickly.

That underlines why the Commonwealth and the states should not be scoring points off each other. The minister should not be waltzing into question time to say that the states have let the system down. I see that the minister’s latest tactic is to refer to every school as a state government school and not a public school, just to underline the point that the Commonwealth, out of the goodness of its heart, is giving back Commonwealth funding—when the Commonwealth has been involved in funding government schools for more than 30 years. Instead of this constant point-scoring and political posturing on the issue of capital funding, it would be better if we had a summit and sat down with the state governments and worked together to fix the capital funding crisis in this country.

11:05 am

Photo of Wilson TuckeyWilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

It was interesting to hear the member for Prospect repeating at least five or six times the word ‘summit’. I well remember the first summit that Bob Hawke called, which was before the parliament had convened. I stacked on a show at the time and said, ‘Why are you going to fill the parliamentary chamber up with non-elected people?’ I was not supposed to be there, so I turned up and occupied a seat for the day. It was the most boring situation that I have ever been involved in; it was a talkfest. If you ever want not to do anything—if the determination of a government is to do nothing—you hold a summit or an inquiry. The Hawke-Keating government was full of it.

I might add that the last Labor Prime Minister since I have been here continues to advise us—and sometimes I think correctly so—that you should never give untied money to state governments. That is a Paul Keatingism: you never do it because it will be wasted. He and I have a generic view about that. I do not restrict it to one side of politics or the other. The great Treasurer of the Labor Party over time, Keating, gives us strong advice about that.

Consequently, whenever we have debates about education funding, it is the wont of the Labor opposition to deal only with specific grants when in fact I can well remember the Prime Minister, in fighting for a sensible tax reform agenda incorporating a GST, made it very clear to the Australian community that this was going to be a growth tax to give adequate resources to the state governments to do their job. Their job, constitutionally as I understand it, is to provide adequate public education, adequate public hospitals and adequate policing and to deal with issues related to land management et cetera. They were the responsibilities the colonies preserved for themselves at the time of Federation. And yet schools are falling down in my electorate.

So the Australian government has to turn to the Australian taxpayer—you would think we manufactured this money to hear some of these people talk. When the government extracted the GST—and I might add that in a political sense we sacrificed about 15 seats in parliament to get it through—the government lacked the support of the present Leader of the Opposition. But when Paul Keating confronted John Hewson on this issue he said, ‘If you vote Hewson in, I will support a GST.’ That is what he said. And he was the first to promote a GST. They had another summit about a broad base consumption tax. Keating was called over to a motel room one night and sitting there was Bill Kelty, the trade union heavies and the Prime Minister, and they pulled the rug out from under the Treasurer. I think he was proposing a 12 per cent tax at the time.

Here we are forcing the Australian taxpayer to pay the GST to fund state governments to do their job, yet we are today debating a bill—which is apparently being criticised for its inadequacy—to give extra money. We had a lecture from the member for Prospect about us all getting together. We are going to have a love-in or a summit and we are all going to love one another. But if you go back and look at the Hansard record you see that the government was pilloried day after day—it is the tall poppy syndrome—about funding non-government schools, sometimes called private schools. We had criticism from the member for Jagajaga, who was lauded a moment ago by the member for Prospect and others, but she identified only the specific grants that we provided to government schools—which, as I will point out in a moment, are very substantial. She totally ignored the GST.

The present Treasurer in the Western Australian government, Mr Ripper—well named—stood up one day and discovered that he had a $700 million surplus. It was a bit of a surprise to him. The West Australian published a table showing where the money came from. When you added it up, 50 per cent of the total revenue of the WA government came from the Australian government—in reality from the Australian taxpayer. That is commonplace throughout the country. So any analysis of the cost of funding a government school, and who provides the money, must be made on that basis. In other words, if it costs—as has been mentioned in the past, and it might have increased a little—$10,000 to educate someone in a secondary school, $5,000 of that comes from the initiatives of the Howard government, including the GST. I quote the remark of Mr Keating, who said: ‘You should never have given them the GST untied, Mr Howard. You should have stipulated every cent.’ We did not believe in that, and you could argue the pros and cons of that for a long time; but the reality is that 50 per cent of the cost of educating and housing, in terms of school buildings and other facilities, is provided through the initiatives of the Howard government. Of course, we are coming to that today, particularly in capital works.

Considering the restrictions on time that I have, I would like to have incorporated in Hansard a list of projects in my electorate of O’Connor which have been funded through government initiatives, including the Investing in Our Schools program. I seek leave from the representative of the Labor Party who is sitting here at the moment to have that list incorporated in Hansard. I am extremely proud of it, and I take every opportunity to attend in those areas.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

ELECTORATE OF O’CONNOR

Capital projects (EXAMPLE)

Government 

Mount Barker Primary School, Oatlands Road, MT BARKER, WA 6324

Funding of $2 million in 2006 for construction of new facilities for years 4-7 including a library, cafeteria, eight class rooms and music and art facilities.

Non-government 

Great Southern Grammar, Nanarup Road, LOWER KALGAN, WA 6330

Funding of $275,000 in 2003 for the construction of eight secondary classrooms, student amenities and change rooms, walkways, stores, offices, professional fees, furniture and equipment, fire services and siteworks.

Investing in Our Schools Programme 

In Round One 63 projects for the electorate of O’Connor were approved.

In round Two 53 projects for the electorate of O’Connor were approved.

A total of $4.4 million for both rounds has been approved.

Round Three for Western Australian schools closed on 29 March 2006 with 1180 applications received. 230 applications have been received from the electorate of O’Connor.

The applications have been checked for compliance with IOSP Guidelines and also reviewed by the State Government Advisor. The SAAP meeting to finalise the recommendations of these applications is scheduled for 12 October 12 2006.

Round One approved projects —O’Connor, WA 

Client Name

Project Name

Total Grant

Amount

Mukinbudin District High School

Information Technology & Power Upgrade

53601

Dowerin District High School

Upgrade of the Design and Technology room

45100

Dowerin District High School

Upgrade of Cooling and Heating

22102

Gnowangerup District High School

Performance Centre

40652

Kellerberrin District High School

Shade Structure over Primary play equipment

9499

Wagin District High School

Playground equipment upgrade

40776

Broomehill Primary School

Reticulation of School Lawns

10000

Mount Manypeaks Primary School

Playground shade sails

5000

Flinders Park Primary School

Paving undercover area

21436

Jerramungup District High School

Reticulation of School Sports Oval

29896

Jerdacuttup Primary School

Senior Playground Enhancement

11220

Ravensthorpe District High School

Bike Track

4000

Ravensthorpe District High School

Shade Sail

2790

Ravensthorpe District High School

Media Production Computers Facility

12680

Ravensthorpe District High School

Carpets

9000

Ravensthorpe District High School

Library Airconditioning

7360

Ravensthorpe District High School

Shade structure

2790

Dumbleyung Primary School

Shade Structures

41420

Newdegate Primary School

Purchase School Photocopier

11159

Kondinin Primary School

Playground Equipment Upgrade

20345

Babakin Primary School

Computers Desks & Chairs

4089

Babakin Primary School

Garden and Paving Improvements

2272

Babakin Primary School

Musical Instrument

8667

Babakin Primary School

Furniture

2091

Meckering Primary School

All-weather cover to play area

9711

Meckering Primary School

ICT Upgrade

17401

Cunderdin District High School

Playground Shade

23265

Cunderdin District High School

Portable Shade Structures

5083

Tammin Primary School

Shade structure and upgrade to playground

45675

Cadoux Primary School

Playground & Shade

18361

Cadoux Primary School

Sport & Technology Facility

26600

Kalannie Primary School

School Computer Equipment upgrade

27000

Kalannie Primary School

Upgrade to lighting and electrical work

4540

Kalannie Primary School

Upgrading of Classroom Furniture

8640

Beacon Primary School

Technology Improvement Project

12054

Beacon Primary School

School Ground Improvement Project

24368

Trayning Primary School

ICT Upgrade

26100

Trayning Primary School

Upgrade to security measures

7479

Trayning Primary School

Paving and upgrade to outdoor area

17719

Nungarin Primary School

Playground and Shade Construction

24106

Moora Primary School

Air-conditioning Upgrade

17014

Moora Primary School

Computer resource upgrade.

33568

Cervantes Primary School

Sport and recreation enhancement

50000

Watheroo Primary School

Playground Equipment

23700

Eneabba Primary School

Computer Network Upgrade

8861

John Willcock College

Shade Structure

13000

John Willcock College

Replacement of whiteboards

776

John Willcock College

Security Improvements

Television with VCRIDVD combination player for

10420

John Willcock College

Library

710

John Willcock College

Multi-purpose library cart

338

Mount Tarcoola Primary School

Initial Planning Costs – Learning Technology Room

3909

Mount Tarcoola Primary School

Fencing Playing Courts

6740

Bolgart Primary School

ICT Upgrade

22436

Bolgart Primary School

Seating/Storage Shed and Workshop

6474

Bolgart Primary School

Updating Reading and Library Resources

6350

Bolgart Primary School

Classroom Resources and Equipment Improvements

5955

Miling Primary School

all weather undercover area

32599

Miling Primary School

Adventure Playground Upgrade

32900

Buntine Primary School

Provision of Play and Fitness Equipment

14557

Ballidu Primary School

Air Conditioning - Electrical Upgrade

1626

Ballidu Primary School

Playground Equipment

21627

Holland Street School

Spencer Park Education Support

ICT Improvements

37305

Centre

Playground upgrade

45000

Round Two Approved Projects —O’Connor, WA 

Client Name

Project Name

Total Grant

Amount

Morawa District High School

Sporting Infrastructure Upgrade

55550

Morawa District High School

Classroom Improvements (Home Economics)

93650

Corrigin District High School

Walkway Upgrade

38280

Dowerin District High School

Sporting Infrastructure Upgrade and School Ground

Improvements

82798

Gnowangerup District High School

Air-conditioning

108589

Goomalling Primary School

ICT Upgrade Play Equipment and Refurbishment of

Buildings

76456

Narembeen District High School

Shade Structure

78181

Boyup Brook District High School

Play Equipment and School Ground Improvements

57131

Woodanilling Primary School

Air conditioning Shade Structure and Water Cooler

89580

Braeside Primary School

Play Equipment and Shade Structures

109989

South Stirling Primary School

Small Scale Extension and Classroom Improvements

128505

Wellstead Primary School

Playground Upgrades

24400

Mount Lockyer Primary School

School Ground and Classroom Improvements

141383

WA College of Agriculture -

Denmark

Shade Structure

18128

WA College of Agriculture -

Denmark

Amenities Refurbishment (Sick Bay)

10070

WA College of Agriculture -

Denmark

School Ground Improvement (Gazebos)

8500

Borden Primary School

Small Scale Extension (Assembly Area)

63609

Pingrup Primary School

Shade Structures

13433

Tincurrin Primary School

Shade Structures

80000

Kulin District High School

Playing Fields Upgrade

109143

Wickepin Primary School

ICT Upgrade

94914

Quairading District High School

Small Scale Refurbishment of Building

9047

Quairading District High School

Shade Structure

15150

Quairading District High School

Classroom Improvements (Floor Coverings) (A)

10842

Quairading District High School

Classroom Improvements (Floor Coverings)

10361

Quairading District High School

Shade Structures

33265

Darkan District High School

Play Equipment and Shade Structure

87988

Frankland Primary School

Small Scale Extension (Multipurpose Room)

112524

Bencubbin Primary School

Shade Structures Classroom improvements and ICT

Equipment

97331

Dandaragan Primary School

Small Extension (Portable Classroom) and ICT

Equipment

150000

Three Springs Primary School

Shade Structures

15950

Dongara District High School

Play Equipment and Sporting Infrastructure

126339

Beachlands Primary School

Air Conditioning

121000

Bluff Point Primary School

Small Scale Extension ( Library)

150000

John Willcock College

Musical Instruments

28765

Mount Tarcoola Primary School

Sporting Infrastructure and Playing Fields Upgrade

13281

Waggrakine Primary School

Small Scale Extension (Art Room)

59730

Bolgart Primary School

Small Scale Extension

82500

Calingiri Primary School

Shade Structure

146580

Wongan Hills District High School

ICT Facilities and Equipment

142361

Jurien Bay District High School

Sporting Infrastructure Upgrade

4400

Jurien Bay District High School

School Ground Improvements

4180

Jurien Bay District High School

Play Equipment and Shade Structures

54890

Jurien Bay District High School

School Ground Improvements (Seating)

2444

Ballidu Primary School

Sporting Infrastructure (Storage Shed)

38258

Denmark High School

Small Scale Extension and Classroom Improvements

(Manual Arts Room)

73017

Denmark High School

ICT Equipment

29280

Denmark High School

Vehicle (School Bus)

4000

Photo of Craig EmersonCraig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Are you in a marginal seat?

Photo of Wilson TuckeyWilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I have a very aggressive policy on grants. I constantly get criticised for the fact that O’Connor does very well out of it. But that is a great credit to the people in my electorate. We, as members of parliament, make sure that they know about it. I have to say to the member for Rankin—and I thank him for his accommodation moments ago—that sometimes members of his party tend to try to hide the initiatives of the Howard government, to the detriment of their own constituents. I never did that when in opposition. Every time I saw something pop up that I thought was beneficial to my electorate, I could not get my fingers into the till quick enough and my people were always informed—

Photo of Don RandallDon Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I thought you only got $1.4 million.

Photo of Wilson TuckeyWilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

The list says, ‘Investing in Our Schools program: round 1, 63 projects; round 2, 53 projects; a total of $4.4 million for both rounds has been approved.’ There you go. You might be a bit behind on this, Member for Canning.

Photo of Don RandallDon Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

You are a Prime Ministerial favourite.

Photo of Wilson TuckeyWilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

That is what it is, I am sure! It is most important that people in my constituency are recognised for their efforts. There is paperwork involved in applying for these schemes. It takes community effort. Typically, when you go to the school, you find that the P&C members and the local authorities have been there, all making contributions. I always thank the volunteers in my electorate because typically, and throughout the community, the contribution of we politicians, with the cash of the taxpayers, pales into insignificance when you look at the personal effort that is being contributed to all of these schemes.

The foundation of it is initiatives of this nature by the government which put the cash up. That is frequently so difficult for people in all communities, but particularly in rural communities, to find. They will give of their time. They will come in with their trucks. They will come in with their front-end loaders. They will do all of those things for their community. But, if they have to write a cheque, the bank manager has a bit of a say in that. Frequently that is very difficult.

I just wanted to make those points about a component of this funding. I could not close without further speaking to the other factor here—that is, the record of the Howard government and its contribution to the state government school sector in particular over and above its GST contributions and the others that I have mentioned. The record is that, since 1996, the Australian government has continued its trend of providing increased funding for school education each year. In 2006-07, nearly $9.3 billion will be provided in funding for both state government and non-government schools, representing a $760 million or 8.9 per cent increase in funding over last year, and a 158.2 per cent increase in funding since 1996.

The member for Prospect said that we were falling behind in real terms. Unless I have missed it, the last time I saw the CPI figure it was running at around four per cent and we have just had an increase of 8.9 per cent. My arithmetic is not bad. I did not have to get the OBE treatment when I was at school. We repeated the tables until we knew them. I can still add a row of figures quicker than anybody can do it on a calculator and I thought that was not a bad way to teach kids, to be honest. I did not object, in hindsight, to the bloke that used to give me a hiding about twice a week at Perth Boys School for well-deserved punishment.

Photo of Russell BroadbentRussell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Not enough, obviously.

Photo of Wilson TuckeyWilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I usually gave them good reason. But the fact of life is that, on simple arithmetic, if I take four from 8.9, I have a real term growth of 4.9—let us say five per cent—and I do not think we have hit four per cent in CPI growth as yet. But, more importantly, are these capital grants programs? Under the capital grants program, an estimated $1.7 billion is being provided over 2005-08 to assist the building maintenance and updating of schools throughout Australia. Government schools will receive an estimated $1.2 billion over 2005-08 from the Australian government under the capital grants program. Specific responsibility for establishing and maintaining government schools rests with the states and territories, with the Australian government providing supplementary funding.

You cannot have it three times. If you are getting 50 per cent of all your expenditures from the Australian taxpayer, you should not try to make comparisons with private non-government schooling, arguably whose only resource of government assistance comes from the Australian government. But it is wrong to compare the funding that states get through the specific grants with those specific grants available to Catholic and other non-government schools, which of course are the only funding they have got.

Again, on capital works, I noted with great approval when recently attending the Christian school in Geraldton—600 kids attending; not a little school by any measure—that they were opening two or three new classrooms. Our contribution was a couple of hundred thousand dollars, as I recollect. I said, ‘Where did the rest of the money come from?’ ‘Oh, we got an interest-free loan from the state government’—they are not going to charge interest, but send the money back. In other words, load up the fees to your parents in a Catholic school—I am sorry, it was not Catholic; it was a Christian school. Those sitting in the audience did not look like the wealthy and the creme de la creme of Geraldton. They looked like pretty ordinary people wishing for a Christian education for their kids, with a delightful staff—young people—teaching.

I will also put on the record in this regard that I write about 2½ thousand letters to schoolkids every year. It is a labour of love, but they are the ones who have achieved at school. While I was at one of the schools for the Investing in Our Schools celebration, I met what I thought to be a fairly young school principal, a very enthusiastic young man. I said to the kids, who were all primary schoolkids, ‘How many of you kids have got a letter from me?’ and up went some hands, including that of the school principal. It tends to date me a bit, but I thought that was a lovely example. I have been doing it for a long time and, while I stay in this place, I will continue to do so. My favourite reply was from the kid who asked whether I could please reply to this letter so his mum and dad would freak out again. When you get those sorts of letters, it makes this job very worth while.

In closing, this is good legislation because it authorises very substantial and increasing expenditure in real terms. We did not have a summit to come to the conclusion, and I could have talked for the same period of time on my objection to the dumbing down of educational processes. I think the member for Rankin and I have some common ground, and it was somewhat interesting to hear the member for Prospect talk about charter schools.

I am a great believer in vouchers. I say: fund parents. This discontinues all the argument about what one school gets and what another school gets. I repeat: you give funding targeted on both economic and geographic grounds to parents by way of a piece of paper only cashable at a school. You then get people making some decisions about the education they want.

In another context in this place, I talked about the role of local government in managing schools. This is commonplace around the world and it gives a lot more ownership of a school to the local population. They have a lot more influence over their local government people than maybe they do over a minister in this parliament. I do not agree with summits. I certainly agree with telling people that if they do not run a decent education system they do not get the money. It is the only influence we have over state governments—we have the constitutional divide—and it is not right that an Australian government minister should spend money on outrageous programs like outcomes based education, which is virtually no education. I thank the House.

11:26 am

Photo of Craig EmersonCraig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

This legislation provides for capital grants for government and non-government schools for the three years 2009-2011. The reason that it allocates funding for that period is that schools, both government and non-government, need some lead time so that they have greater certainty in their own planning and construction programs. I unreservedly welcome this legislation. I have had occasion to say in the past that sometimes the general public watching question time would come to the conclusion that Labor and the coalition agree on nothing and argue about everything. The truth—and that truth is especially encapsulated in the proceedings of the Main Committee—is that there are matters on which we do agree. Funding capital works for our schools is a matter upon which there is unanimity across the chamber. We can and do debate the adequacy of such funding, but any legislation that allocates extra funding to schools is legislation that I would strongly support.

I note that the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2006 allocates funding both to government and non-government schools and it does provide an opportunity to debate the funding patterns of various federal governments over the years. The truth is that since this government was elected there has been a very substantial shift in funding towards non-government schools and away from government schools, at least in relative terms. It reminds us that there is nothing in the Constitution or in pre-existing legislation or practice that determines absolutely how much funding a Commonwealth government should spend on government schools and how much on non-government schools, nor is there a strict formula for how much the Commonwealth government should spend on schools compared with how much state governments should spend on schools.

We do hear from some coalition members that state governments should fund state schools, and that then frees the Commonwealth to fund the non-government schools. But, in reality, states increasingly have become involved in funding non-government schools and the Commonwealth increasingly has become involved in funding non-government schools as well. So if you step back to have a look at the rhyme or reason that guides these funding allocations you will fairly quickly come to the conclusion that there is none.

That opens up the possibility of contemplating a new funding model based on pooled funding. Why do we obsess about how much the Commonwealth is giving the government schools compared with states and how much the Commonwealth is giving non-government schools compared with the states? Surely the overall responsibility of both levels of government is to ensure that every young person in this country has the same access to a quality education, whether it is in a government or a non-government school.

I note that Kim Beazley Sr, the father of the Leader of the Opposition, buried the state-aid debate back in the 1970s. I would like to see it remain buried, because we should be funding, fundamentally, according to the needs of the child. Having said that, it is true that there is a concentration of needy students in government schools in poor communities. This residualisation of government schools in poor communities is having a severe impact on the opportunities for those students to get a decent education that sets them up for life.

In part, this residualisation has come about by a movement of students from government to non-government schools. Over the last 20 years, all of the enrolment growth has been in non-government schools; there has been none in government schools. Parliamentarians from both sides of the chamber need to acknowledge that parents are voting with their children’s feet and are taking them out of government schools and putting them into non-government schools. And it is not just those with a very large amount of income that are doing so. Parents with low incomes are still scraping enough money together to pay the fees in low-fee non-government schools, especially Catholic schools, which tend to charge much lower fees on average than independent schools, but also in independent schools.

Because parents are voting with their children’s feet, the government schools in poor communities are left with a very high proportion of students with behavioural problems and learning difficulties, and a large preponderance of students who do not have English as a first language—the sons and daughters of migrants. That does not create a wonderful learning environment. If there is a lot of classroom disruption and bullying then those students who are trying to get ahead are disrupted and distracted. Not only that, but the principal of the school, or often the deputy principal, will spend a lot of time on pastoral care. By that I mean tending to the needs of young people who might have very sad and unfortunate lives at home in dysfunctional families. They can often be subject to domestic violence. All of that means that students arrive at school almost taking refuge, I have to say. School offers them a period of respite, where they can have a peaceful time, only for them to go home and resume a very tough life. I say this not from the abstract but from direct experience in a number of government schools in my electorate of Rankin.

Unless we as a community are prepared to face up to these realities and not glance at the ground and duck our heads and pretend that it is not happening, those young people will not get a decent chance in life and will not get a quality education. That is why I have advocated a needs based funding model for schools, both government and non-government, such that extra funding would attach to the neediest children. All children would receive funding, but extra funding would attach to the neediest children—those children with learning difficulties, with special needs, with behavioural problems or with English as a second language because they have recently arrived from a non-English-speaking country. It is possible to create a formula based on those criteria, such that extra funding does flow to those children.

Unlike the previous speaker, who argued for a voucher which is payable to the parents, I would still argue that the funding should be made available to the school, but as the child moves the funds move as well. He did not actually mean that; he said that the money should be paid to the parents and be redeemable only by spending it on school education. My model is different from that: the money would be payable to the school, but as the child moves the money moves as well. The great benefit of a needs based funding model along these lines is that the situation for disadvantaged students in accordance with the formula would change dramatically, from one of them being considered to be a problem or a liability to being an asset—that is, schools would start competing for disadvantaged students because substantially larger funding would attach to those students.

If you consider the dynamics that are unleashed as a result of that, it is very easy to imagine non-government schools, including some that may be quite well-off, working out how they can get their hands on some of these disadvantaged students. If they get their hands on the disadvantaged students, if they are able to persuade the parents to bring those disadvantaged students out of poor government schools into somewhat better-off and non-government schools, that can only be good news for the those kids and also for the students who remain in the poorer government schools. The classes in the poor government schools will become more regularised, if you like, and if those classes are more regularised, there is a lesser concentration of behavioural problems and learning difficulties, creating an environment much more conducive to learning and excellence.

In effect, you would have government and non-government schools bidding and competing for disadvantaged students rather than the current situation where they are being pushed into or kept in poor government schools in poor communities. In addition, not only would some of those students be attracted into other schools but those who remain would be generating extra funds for the poor government schools, so the poor government schools would be less poor—that is, more money for poor government schools and more money for those schools who attract disadvantaged students.

What would the money be used for, particularly in poor government schools? This, in my view, should be a matter for those schools, subject to an overall curriculum and some generally accepted programs such as Reading Recovery. In those schools that receive the extra funds, they would be able to hire teacher aides to assist in Reading Recovery programs to ensure that, wherever possible, literacy and numeracy standards are raised in those poor government schools. They could put on extra teachers in those schools where class sizes could be reduced.

I am not an advocate of across-the-board reductions in class sizes. I do not imagine for a moment that reducing class sizes across the entire schooling system, say from 30 to 28 students, would make much difference at all to learning outcomes. But, in schools where there are concentrations of students with behavioural problems and learning difficulties, instead of one teacher having 30 students, one teacher might be able to take 10 students and give them one-to-one support and tuition. I believe that that would produce real results.

So the extra funding could be used on teacher aides, on extra teachers. Controversially, I am a supporter of paying our best teachers more. I do not care what you call that. We can get into stifling debates about terminology, but I believe it is important that our best teachers be attracted to and retained in our most disadvantaged schools. If that is controversial and it makes me unpopular within my side of politics, so be it, because I fundamentally believe that it is important that the best teachers be attracted into and retained in our most disadvantaged schools, and that can and should involve paying them more.

I know that most teachers are motivated by a sense of altruism, a commitment to learning and teaching and because they feel good about it. We as Australians should be very proud of the teaching profession in this country, but it also helps for those teachers to get a bit of extra acknowledgement through a bit of extra remuneration. I have never heard anyone say they do not want the money. I think it is a good thing that they get extra remuneration as acknowledgement of their wonderful contribution to turning around the lives of children. I would argue strongly that our best teachers should be given incentives to work in our most difficult and challenging schools.

We should be having a genuine debate about this rather than having ridiculous debates on shocking terminology such as ‘performance pay’, ‘merit pay’ and ‘vouchers’. These debates are small-minded, because they are about labels. Across the chamber, and in the broader community, we need to have debates about quality and about ensuring that our young people have a flying start in life.

The extra funding in respect of disadvantaged students could also be used on a ‘full service’ school model—a school that is financially able to provide on campus a nursing service, a visiting GP service and, indeed, police services. In very disadvantaged schools, and in other schools, it is quite common for young girls to get pregnant. They are very worried about how they are going to tell their parents. They are anxious and distressed about it, and often they have no-one to talk to except the principal or deputy principal—who then spend all their time on pastoral care instead of teaching. But if you had a resident school nurse—or a school nurse rotating amongst, say, three schools—they could help with the pastoral care. A psychologist could help with pastoral care. A GP could help with the pastoral and physical care needs of students.

All of these wonderful opportunities exist. I believe we should move beyond the stifling political debate about tags and labels. We should work out the best ways of delivering these services. We should work out the best ways of rewarding teachers and having them come to, and stay in, our most disadvantaged schools. Instead we are straitjacketed by these ridiculous debates.

I said at the outset that I welcome this legislation because it provides extra funding for schools—and that is a good thing. I would now like to comment on a very good document, provided by the Australian Education Union, which sets out in a most rigorous way the extra funding requirements of our government school systems in order to ensure that disadvantaged students are given a reasonable opportunity. In today’s dollars, that extra funding comes to about $2.9 billion. That gives us an indication of the magnitude of the task. In a budget of well over $200 billion—and that is only the federal budget—we should be looking at ways to accommodate that task. It will happen not overnight but over time. There can be no greater investment than investing in the talents of our young people.

Why is it that people say the kids are not as gifted and talented as kids in better-off communities? That is absolutely repugnant. It is an absolutely disgraceful attitude, yet I have to say that many people hold that attitude, including some people who live in the poor communities. We should be able to lift up the spirits of every young person in this country. We should be able to develop and nourish their talents so that they can be great contributors to our society and so that they can have a wonderful life.

If we move to a needs based funding model that makes sense, is practical and gets rid of all this stupid debate about tags and labels, we will have done a great thing for this country. I do not see any real signs of the coalition government doing it. The Labor opposition is committed to a needs based funding model. I have to say, I think that the likelihood of that happening will be real only upon the election of a Labor government. In the meantime, I fully welcome this legislation.

11:46 am

Photo of Russell BroadbentRussell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise today in support of the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2006, which reflects the Australian government’s funding commitments and educational priorities by providing a record $33,000 million in funding to all Australian schools over the years 2005-08. This bill provides the largest ever commitment by an Australian government to schooling in Australia. This increase in funding is a continued trend under the Howard government and marks a total increase of 158.2 per cent since 1966.

I was pleased to hear the member for Rankin have his input into this debate and be prepared to put his views on the line. Perhaps not all within his party would follow or join him in those views, but it is obvious he has a direct, sincere and close association with teachers, their professional development and the opportunities that they face within the public sector of education. I have a commitment to one of the schools that is listed in the government area, the Pakenham Secondary College, which I had two stints with as a school counsellor—a great experience.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you were not here for the member for O’Connor’s presentation, which is always entertaining, thoughtful and deep. He was, of course, assisted in that approach by the member for Canning, from Western Australia, who is another good friend of mine and is dedicated to education and the benefits that it provides to the electorate of Canning and the giant electorate that is O’Connor. We heard again the story, which the member for O’Connor has told so many times, about how much power there is in praise and how he writes 2,500 letters to every student that has gained a prize across the schools right across O’Connor.

When we talk about O’Connor, we talk about places like Geraldton, which my family has had an association with over the last few years. I know the schools the member for O’Connor was talking about in Geraldton. To those people from Geraldton that are listening today I say, ‘We appreciate the remoteness of parts of Western Australia.’ This has nothing to do with the seat of McMillan, which I will come to a minute, but it is just great to hear members talking with such passion, be it the member for Rankin on this issue or the member for O’Connor on his electorate. It was great to hear the member for O’Connor talk about that small independent school and the obviously intimate relationship that he has with his community.

I mentioned before that, whilst the Australian government is having a greater input into education than any federal government ever has before, I believe that the Investing in Our Schools initiative, an initiative of the Prime Minister’s, has been the most well-received program I have ever seen run out across Australia in my 22 years of activity as a member or a candidate—I think I have spent more time as a candidate than a member.

I have seen programs come out and the popularity of them, but I can tell you: this one is popular in all seats. It is popular in the seat of Gorton because they are making a difference. The next speaker will get up—

Photo of Brendan O'ConnorBrendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Brendan O’Connor interjecting

Photo of Russell BroadbentRussell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

No, the next speaker will get up and say how good this has been for schools. It is not a matter of just giving these schools a benefit. I will tell you what it is all about. I want to say to those people who are representing the minister so the message goes back: you have to sell a heck of a lot of sausages and onion to possibly come up with the sort of money that has been invested in these tiny schools. They just could not do it. I believe the state governments’ priorities are lacking in that they should have done these things.

We have got teachers trying to deliver education in public schools in inadequate facilities. The member for Rankin before talked about the shift of young people from public schools to private schools. I do not believe there is much of a shift going on—I know he was talking about the numbers. I do not believe they are shifting out of public schools. In our public schools—and I am going to talk about a few in a minute—the teachers are dedicated and the principals and teachers are talented. The facilities are not as good as some of the new private schools, but I would say to the member for Rankin that there is a lot of streaming going on. They are starting in the kindergarten, going through to primary school in the independent sector and then going through to secondary school in the private sector, rather than shifting from public schools to private schools—although there is some of that in the secondary area. In my own experience, I went from Koo Wee Rup Primary School to Koo Wee Rup Secondary College. Later on, I went to the city—probably an investment by my mother and father that they are now concerned about.

We are putting in around $10.7 billion—it is very easy to say a billion dollars, but it is a thousand million dollars—which will flow to state schools. That is an increase of $2.8 thousand million over the previous quadrennium. An estimated $20.2 thousand million will flow to non-government schools, which is an increase of approximately—we had better go back to billions—$2.5 billion over the previous amount. The funding is provided to assist the building, maintenance and upgrading of schools throughout Australia. The Australian government funded projects typically include the construction of new schools, additional classrooms, libraries and other vital school facilities. Every member, even those gathered in this room, would have gone to open new school facilities, and they would all admit that they are fantastic. They are amazing facilities compared to what we as young people expected from the schools that we went through in the sixties and seventies, for those who are about my age. Of course, the member for Gorton probably went through far classier schools than Deputy Speaker Somlyay and me.

The Investing in Our Schools program, as I said before, has been most positive for schools in my electorate of McMillan. Pakenham Secondary College, where I was a school counsellor, received funding of $1.6 million in 2006 for stage 3 of the construction of general purpose classrooms; seminar space; commerce, personal development and technology studies facilities; staff work space, which is always important; senior student lounge and amenities—imagine that!—and the upgrade of general purpose classrooms. It is a great school in outer Melbourne. The school has challenges, which it is facing; we all admit that. One of the best things that happened prior to the last election was when the Prime Minister said, ‘I’m going to put some money into the Catholic education system so that they are going to get over and above the money that they have been receiving so far.’ I remember that because I was a candidate then.

Now, for the first time, places like Leongatha, which were once seen as wealthy dairy communities but are no longer, have the socioeconomic status of many of the regional cities across Australia. Mary McKillop Catholic regional college at Leongatha has received funding of $956,956—I do not know how we got a figure like that—in 2004 for construction of a music, drama and dance centre, an arts centre and two classrooms; refurbishment of manual and industrial arts areas; conversion of an existing area to provide physical education facilities; and refurbishment of student amenities and removal of existing relocatable classrooms. I think it was the day I was called away to Sydney to do something else that they opened those facilities. I still remember saying to the bishop, ‘Look, Bishop, I’m not going to make it,’ and he said to me, ‘You go with our blessing.’

The Investing in Our Schools program has taken me back to places like Albert Street, Moe. People say, ‘What have you got to do with Moe, Russell?’ Moe used to be in my electorate. But also my sister began her teaching career in Moe. Those were the days when the teachers did not get the opportunity to pick and choose which school they would like to go to; they got sent. My sister Gaye was sent to Moe. So I have a sort of family attachment to the schools around there as well. And watching the money go into these older schools where there has been a decline in country communities has been great. Albert Street Primary, Moe, constructed an undercover assembly area. That was $40,128. As I am going to keep saying, that is a lot of sausage sizzles.

And there is the Baringa Special School. Mr Deputy Speaker, you know that I have a special affinity with people with disabilities, and particularly with schools like Baringa Special School. The principal there is Rosa. They receive $42,573 under this program.

Last week I had the opportunity to be surprised when I walked into a school. I walked into Bunyip Primary School to celebrate the $50,000 we gave them for their library, only to be met by a witch, who got such a shock when she saw me—I do not know what I looked like—that her hat fell off. She said, ‘You’re not meant to be here.’ I said, ‘What do you mean I’m not meant to be here?’ She said, ‘You’re meant to be in there.’ I thought, ‘I’ve come to a primary school; there is nobody in the office; I am met by a witch whose hat falls off; and then I am told to go in there.’ I went in, and behold: here is a whole assembly hall full of children and teachers dressed up for Book Week. They are dressed up as every sort of character you can possibly imagine.

Photo of Brendan O'ConnorBrendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Harry Potter.

Photo of Russell BroadbentRussell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

There was Harry Potter. I had not met Harry Potter. When I started to address this group to hand over my contribution to Book Week, and after I had met their principal and their librarian, I met the Queen of Hearts, whom I was quite taken with.

Photo of Joanna GashJoanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Mrs Gash interjecting

Photo of Russell BroadbentRussell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I am serious. You should have seen the Queen of Hearts. She was one of the teachers. Every student was participating and every teacher was participating—except the principal. He said to me, ‘I’m normally here on these days,’ but I think he had to come in with boxer shorts and he did not think it was appropriate when the federal member was there, so he wore a suit. He was the only member of staff with a suit on that day.

Photo of Brendan O'ConnorBrendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Dressed as you, probably.

Photo of Russell BroadbentRussell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

He could have been; that is right. If I ever make Book Week, I will probably be in more trouble. There I am at Book Week and I am just surrounded by these fantastic kids and all the work that their mums and dads and grandparents have put into their outfits. There were spiders and all sorts of people that I did not even know about, because I do not see a lot of children’s books anymore. I would like to thank Mem Fox for sending me hers with a note on it.

I am looking at all these kids and thinking, ‘What am I going to say? What can a federal member say when there is so much colour in the room and so much is going on?’ After I had introduced myself to Harry Potter for the first time, I tried to recognise who the other people were, but it had to be explained to me who they were. Here we were at Bunyip Primary School and all these great things were happening. They took me into the library and showed me where they had spent the $50,000. They had done a great job on their library. And what impressed me even more than the job they did on their library was the way that the students showed me around the library. They were so proud of their new library. It was really their place. The two school captains took me there. I went from there and we had morning tea. I had morning tea with the Queen of Hearts. She had changed into the normal clothes she wore for teaching.

Photo of Craig EmersonCraig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I can’t match that.

Photo of Russell BroadbentRussell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I will not forget the day at Bunyip Primary School—to enter into all that was happening. Obviously those kids have a love for books that is expressed in this day of dressing up. It must have taken them weeks and weeks to prepare the outfits they had on. I asked one little girl, ‘Where did you get your wig?’ She said, ‘That’s my hair.’ So there she was with her hair done so amazingly I thought it had to be a wig she was wearing.

There is always a downside to addresses like this, and that is the performance of the Victorian Labor government. Why has there been the neglect? That is what I cannot understand. Why has there been this neglect of schools? The Bracks government have had the last seven years collecting record taxes from GST, land tax, stamp duty. They have indexed every licence and every charge, so they have had huge increases in their taxes and charges. They still have their levy on petrol. So why is the Victorian school student not benefiting from that windfall? Why are there schools across Victoria that are not benefiting? Are they waiting to do some announcements before the election? Well, it is getting close to the election now; make the announcements. I do not want to name the schools, because I do not want to embarrass any of the principals across the area.

Because of the Investing in Our Schools program, for the first time we have been welcomed into primary schools—you must know that yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker Somlyay; you have been welcomed into primary schools, welcomed into secondary schools. We are investing in these schools. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training, who is sitting at the table, knows, because his colleagues are telling him they are being welcomed into schools. It is a great program and it has made a difference to people’s lives.

When I think about those kids at Bunyip Primary School, I wonder: why hasn’t the Bracks Labor government really made a difference to those kids? This investment should have happened ages ago. They are already getting $7 billion—seven thousand million dollars—coming through, from the federal government down. So there is the GST money, the land tax and the stamp duty; the increased cost of your fishing licence, your boating licence, your shooter’s licence, your car licence; and 65 other charges that the Bracks government have indexed each year, so every year it goes up, yet every year they are investing less.

When the member for O’Connor spoke he said that there had been a real increase in federal government spending of 4.9 per cent—an 8.9 per cent increase but a real increase of 4.9 per cent. When you play that across what has happened in the states, they have had no real increase in expenditure. So what the states have done is said: ‘All right; if the federal government is prepared to invest in our schools, we’ll back off, we’ll spend less. We don’t have to do this.’ In fact, there are cases where, as money has been invested in Roads to Recovery, some councils have backed off in their spending on roads and let the federal government take over—just a cost shift.

It is time to end the cost shifting in education in Victoria, particularly in my seat of McMillan. In the time that I have I cannot read out the list of all those that have received the benefit of the Investing in Our Schools program in McMillan, but what a great pleasure it has been to see nearly $4.6 million for both rounds. There were 78 projects in the first round for McMillan and 25 projects in the second round for the electorate, with total funding of $4.6 million for both rounds. In round 3 for government schools in Victoria there were 2,526 applications across the state, with 146 applications received from the electorate of McMillan. These are currently being checked for compliance, and announcements will be made early next year.

In secondary colleges there are people with a huge commitment, a really determined commitment. I think of Rod at Drouin Secondary College; they have been able to purchase a mower, carpet the library where the carpet was old and tatty. They have put in air conditioning. They have put in ICT improvements. They have got data projectors, stadium scoreboards and a sound system that was needed—$21,000 for that scoreboard and sound system, for their beautiful new building there.

I said when I started that I have seen a lot of programs go through federal governments, both Liberal and Labor, in my time, from 1984, when I first ran as a candidate. I have watched it, seen the programs. I have never seen a program like this that has been so well received by a nation. Parents know that, when you are investing in their schools, you are investing in their children, you are investing in the teachers. We appreciate what the teachers do, what the school councils do and we are batting for them to do a better job.

Photo of Alex SomlyayAlex Somlyay (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I thank the member for McMillan for continuing the high standard of debate on this bill.

12:05 pm

Photo of Brendan O'ConnorBrendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I am sure your comment was not meant to be in any way a backhanded compliment. With respect to the member for McMillan he, quite rightly, indicated that one of our great opportunities as federal members is to visit schools. The one thing that I think is clear across the chamber is that members are always invigorated after talking to kids, talking about their aspirations. They have a more disarming capacity to embarrass you than a journalist. They have an interest in life, and it is not filtered through the prejudices which, unfortunately, too many adults have.

I should also indicate, with respect to the member for McMillan, that he knows two siblings of mine, both of my brothers. He met my younger brother very recently, who is an adviser for the Treasurer in the state of Victoria, and he knows my brother who is a union official—and I will not go too much further there; I will get distracted. I should indicate to him that my sister lives in his electorate. She probably does not vote for him, but he should not take it personally. Her children—my nieces—Tierney and Hannah, go to St Josephs in Korumburra, a great Catholic school, and of course a school that requires funding.

I went to a Catholic school for part of my schooling. I went to a public school and I went to a Catholic school. I want to demythologise the assertions made by the Howard government that somehow Labor is anti private school, because we just want to see equity within the public and non-government school sector. We want to see some level of fairness; we do not want to see money being drawn from poorer schools, whether they be government or non-government, and given to elite schools. I think that was the point that was made by the member for Prospect and the member for Rankin earlier in the debate.

The longer I stay here, the more I see how many coalition members rely upon public schools. Interestingly enough, National Party members in this place rely more on the public school system than many Labor members, but they do not boast about it. They do not defend the public school system in the way they should. We know they rely upon the public school system more than many Labor members do because of the geographical areas in which they live. Private school providers do not see a sufficient density of population, so they do not place a school into some of these smaller communities.

I would hope, when we have these debates that are supposed to be important to the children of this nation, that people who understand the requirement of having public schools across this nation get up on their hind legs and defend the public school system. Whether they be a government member or an opposition member, they should be defending it. As I said, those National Party members and other members that represent regional communities rely upon the state school system so much that they should know more than anybody in this place how important it is that the precious amount of money we have to provide to education be provided to government schools and non-government schools on merits, on what is required.

I listened to the member for McMillan’s tale about meeting a witch and kids dressed up as characters from books. It is a wonderful thing. The power and wonder of reading should never be lost. In fact, there has been a revival and a renewal of that interest. Thank goodness there has been. It has been a worry to me to see kids distracted—and I use the word ‘distracted’ advisedly—as a result of technological changes, by other things. I would hate to think that children did not understand the power of reading and the way in which it allows your imagination to really work—a way in which video games and interaction with computers do not. I did listen carefully to the way in which the imagination was being cultivated in the school in the electorate of the member for McMillan.

I want to make a serious point about the fact that we have to ensure that the Commonwealth’s largesse which is provided to schools is based on requirements. I could get up here and attack the Howard government tirelessly, but I would rather ask them, particularly those members who rely upon state government schools primarily in their electorates, that they attend to that. They understand that. There is that paradox in this place with respect to education: so many coalition members in regional areas require public schools more than even some Labor members in their electorates. They require them because of the remote areas in which those schools have to be placed. They should, quite rightly, be properly resourced by the Commonwealth. I think it is important that we get the priorities right. I do not think the government has the priorities right with respect to this matter.

I turn to the bill in question. The bill provides some certainty to funding for capital works in both government and non-government schools beyond 2008 and that is why Labor supports it. It is clear that many schools throughout the country and in my own electorate of Gorton are in desperate need of capital improvement. I have visited many schools; met with many principals, teachers and children; and talked about their needs, whether they are matters of safety, such as the need for more secure fencing, or replacement of deteriorating gym equipment or the buildings or improvements.

Schools also need certainty of funding. Schools want to plan their future development. They want to know whether they can plan for infrastructure requirements for the future. So, as I said, we welcome this amendment, which will allow for schools to plan in some way. The administration of these general capital grants is in contrast to the government’s other capital funding program, announced in an ad hoc way during the last election, called Investing in Our Schools. Schools in my electorate have been recipients of grants from Investing in Our Schools. In fact, I have been happy to be involved in assisting those schools to achieve those grants.

I am happy to see any money from the Commonwealth being provided to schools in my electorate. I will mention some of them, because I was involved in their applications. Copperfield College was looking for money for oval redevelopment and they succeeded in getting some of the money that has assisted in developing that oval. I was at Copperfield College only two weeks ago. I met with the principal, Tony Simpson, the school leaders and the team leaders from year 7 to year 12. It was a very important thing. They wanted to show me the oval and I wanted to speak with them about all sorts of matters. It was a great experience for me. I was glad to see that that money was achieved. But, with respect to the way in which the grants are operated, there were many delays and confusions on that particular project. I am contrasting that project with the matter we are currently debating.

There were concerns about the way in which Investing in Our Schools operated. There were chronic delays in some instances. There was uncertainty. The fact that it was on the websites before the schools knew about it I think was wrong. Schools should have been given the courtesy of being told that there was money for them before it was on a public website. That is just basic courtesy and administration management that should be undertaken by the Commonwealth. Schools should not have to be told by a stranger who has looked at a website whether they have received money from the Commonwealth. On many occasions I spoke to those principals, and it was the first they had heard of it. That money was well needed. Some schools in my electorate certainly need to redevelop their infrastructure.

Deer Park Primary School spoke to me about wanting to get shade structures, play equipment, playing field development and seating. They were in receipt of $150,000, and I welcomed that. That school was in need for some time—certainly for most of the period in which the Howard government has been in office, since 1996. I was happy to be involved and to be the person to indicate that to the school at the time. Keilor Downs Primary School received the same amount for their performing arts centre. Keilor Downs Secondary College had an oval upgrade, Deer Park Secondary College sports court was resurfaced and Taylors Lakes Primary School got security fencing.

Some schools missed out. Some schools that did receive money had previously sought to raise money in another manner because they did not know with any certainty whether they were going to be in receipt of such money. So the way in which that program operated created uncertainty. As we know, it was plagued by delays. That did not help the schools to manage the way in which they went about improving their infrastructure.

So, by way of contrast, I would say that this bill does provide some greater certainty than the Investing in Our Schools grants did. I think that is partly due to the fact that, on occasion, the Howard government pays lip-service to schools. As we know, the Investing in Our Schools program arose out of an election commitment that was made on the run in response to Labor’s education policy. If our announcements forced the government to provide money to schools in need, so be it. Of course, I am happy that that has occurred.

This government has to be fair dinkum about the way it funds schools. This government might want to attack Labor for somehow not supporting non-government schools, but that is entirely untrue. We support the non-government school sector, we support the government sector—we just want to see equity. Money provided for children taught in schools in this nation should be provided to schools based on need, not greed. Money should not be given to elite schools over schools that do not have the basic services required to ensure that, once their children leave primary and secondary school, they have a chance along with everybody else.

I call upon particularly members of The Nationals in this place but also others who represent regional areas, whose constituents rely primarily, almost entirely in some cases, upon government schools, to say inside their party structures, ‘We want some of this money provided and we do not want it to be siphoned off to elite category 1 schools,’ as has occurred in the last number of years.

Labor supports this bill. It does provide some certainty in ways in which the Investing in Our Schools program did not. The funding goes beyond a set time, as I understand it, which also provides the capacity for schools to plan. I think schools have to be treated better than they have been. They should not find out whether or not they have received funding via a website. I had school principals ring me and say, ‘I found out I have got no money, because I went to the website,’ or ‘Someone rang me and told me that we missed out.’ No correspondence was entered into with the principals of schools in my electorate. I do not imagine I am the only member who has had school principals treated so disrespectfully. Some members may have received information prior to the public and the schools receiving it, but I certainly did not.

I also think that it is critical that the government does not play with this matter. We should also be informed. As federal members we should be informed prior to the public. We visit those schools, we care about the kids in those schools and about their needs, and we should be informed prior to the matter being posted on the website. I hope that the government takes heed of some of the comments I have made. We do support the bill. We do hope that the government chooses ultimately to come to Labor’s view on school funding, which is pretty simple: schools that are in need should get resources before elite schools.

12:21 pm

Photo of Pat FarmerPat Farmer (Macarthur, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training) Share this | | Hansard source

Just before I sum up on the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2006 I would like to acknowledge the support that this bill has had from both sides of parliament, both from the opposition and, most importantly, from the government. It has been a very worthwhile project. We have heard many comments from a number of members, in particular the member for Jagajaga, the member for Prospect, the member for Rankin, the member for Gorton and the member for Ballarat from the opposition; and the member for McMillan, who gave us an excellent speech, the member for Canning, and of course the member for O’Connor earlier on. All of these members have spoken quite eloquently and quite personally on their reflections on this bill, the support that this bill has given to schools in their electorates, how it is furthering the education of all our children and how it will take that education on into the future and support them with facilities that are much needed.

We have heard from a number of speakers about a number of projects that have been launched through the Investing in Our Schools program and also through capital works funding. I have visited many schools during the last few years and have seen a number of schools in particular need of support through the Investing in Our Schools funding package. I went to see a school in the assistant Government Whip’s electorate of Gilmore. Every time it rained their toilets would flood. This was at a local primary public school. It is just simply not good enough. This is the whole reason why the federal government has introduced the Investing in Our Schools funding and why it is so important that we continue with worthwhile programs to support schools.

However, it is very important to note that public state schools are a state responsibility and the maintenance of those schools is a state responsibility. State governments have a very strong responsibility to support these children, the P&Cs, the parents involved with the schools, and of course the school teachers and the principals there at these schools. Because they are not doing that, the federal government has had to pick up the ball in order to try to support them in that responsibility. But it is very important that they accept their responsibilities. They are state schools—in most of the cases we are talking about state schools—and they are the states’ responsibility.

The member for Jagajaga supports the bill because she knows it is in the best interests of all Australian schools. The member for Jagajaga has mentioned that she acknowledges that the Investing in Our Schools program was very welcome, and of course it was very welcome. The Australian government knows only too well—and in particular my office and the department of DEST know only too well—that just in the latest round of applications we have received more than 10,440 projects requested by schools around the country for upgrades of various facilities needed at the schools.

It appals me to think that there are a number of schools out there that have actually had mushrooms growing in their carpets, that have toilet blocks that flood, that have school buildings that leak when it rains and that have paint peeling off the walls of their libraries and falling onto the books while our kids are trying to study in the school libraries. This is simply not acceptable, and a proper maintenance program by the states is certainly needed.

Once again, I would like to sincerely acknowledge the support from both sides of the House for this bill. It is important that we put our political persuasions aside and put our children first, and that is why this bill has been so well received by everybody in the House.

This bill amends the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004 to provide capital grant funding for state schools and non-government schools for 2009-11. The bill provides a record $33 billion in funding to all Australian schools in 2005-08. In 2006-07, nearly $9.3 billion will be provided to both state government and non-government schools, representing an increase in funding of $760 million, or 8.9 per cent, over the last year and an increase of 158 per cent in funding since 1996.

Funding under the act includes $2.7 billion for school capital works in 2005-08, which reflects a significant investment in improving the capital infrastructure of all schools. This is an increase of $1.4 billion over the 2001-04 quadrennium. An estimated $1.7 billion will be provided under the capital grants program to state schools and non-government schools in 2005-08. This program provides funding to assist with the building, maintenance and upgrading of schools throughout Australia. Australian government funded projects typically include the construction of new schools, additional classrooms, libraries and other vital school facilities to improve educational opportunities. The state government schools will receive an estimated $1.2 billion in 2005-08 from the Australian government under the capital grants program. An estimated $489 million will be provided for Catholic and independent schools over the same period.

In addition to the capital grants program, the $1 billion Investing in Our Schools program is providing funding directly to schools for smaller projects that improve the infrastructure of the school by helping to repair, replace or install items critical to a school’s needs, as identified by the school’s community. This is done at a grassroots level with the P&C, the school principal and the school community advising the government on projects that are dear to them and needed by them. This program allows for the identification and delivery of high-priority projects that are not able to be funded under the existing capital grants program.

Like previous bills, this bill makes specific provision for capital funding allocations beyond the normal four years of the funding quadrennium. This is due to the size and complexity of school capital projects, which often require a long lead time for planning, assessment and construction and are regularly funded across several years. Anyone who has ever had anything to do with any building project knows that it takes quite some time to go from the drawing stage through to the final building stage. That is why this bill is so important.

Schedules 3 and 5 of the act currently set out the funding for the capital grants program for state government schools and non-government schools respectively for the period 2005-08. These schedules also include a specific note stating that funding allocations for later years will be added by an amending act. This bill amends schedules 3 and 5 of the act to insert maximum capital grant funding amounts for state government schools and for block grant authorities for non-government schools for the calendar years of 2009, 2010 and 2011.

Funding amounts for the program years beyond 2008 are required because capital grants are approved up to three years in advance of the current calendar year. In 2006, a capital project may be approved involving funding for programs through to 2009. By a longstanding arrangement, the state education departments and non-government block grant authorities which administer the program are able to recommend funding allocations for projects up to three years in advance of the current calendar year. This enables funding for major projects which require long lead times to be secured at an early stage and payments for large projects to be staged over a number of years.

This bill is about giving stability in Australian government funding to educating authorities and schools as they undertake planning and construction of major projects designed to provide essential educational opportunities for all of our students Australia-wide. Funding arrangements between the private and the public sector have been mentioned by a number of people. I want to make one final point as I wrap up this bill: government schools receive more than 70 per cent of the available funding through the Investing in Our Schools program and capital works funding that is available for the building of schools, for libraries and other buildings. So it is for this reason that I commend this bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.