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

I stand today as a proud member on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the Howard government in the House of Representatives pleased that I have the opportunity to speak on the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill 2006. I have not been here for the 10 years of the Howard government; I had a rest for three years. As a consequence, I cherish even more the opportunity to be here today representing the Howard government and my electorate of Canning in this place so that we can bring better government to this country, which we have done over the last 10 years.

As I said, I am very pleased to speak on the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill 2006. It is a pity the member for Jagajaga has left because I wanted to address a few remarks to her. Her ideologically driven diatribe is just an indication of why we are on this side of the House and they are on that side. We have had only today Martin Ferguson, the member for Batman, pointing out that the policy views of the Labor Party and the politics of envy placed on school policy before the last federal election is one of the things that they must move on from. We have a division in the Labor Party about the policy initiatives, particularly the educational policy initiatives, which were also highlighted in The Latham Diaries, which I read over the Christmas break. The diaries allowed me to peer into the dark heart of the Labor Party and to see some of the home truths that came out. Mark Latham pointed out the flawed policy of the politics of envy, which the Labor Party took to the last federal election. I am sure it cost them dearly because they were in the business of dividing the Australian community on the basis of class and envy and the Australian people saw through it. I am pleased to say that the Australian electorate is obviously a very sensible group of people, which makes very good judgments.

I want to deal with a couple of the elements of the bill before I go to the Investing in Our Schools program. As it relates to the special non-government schools that do not qualify under the SES program, there needs to be special consideration that they receive the maximum. I am pleased to see the opposition agrees with that. The tutorial voucher initiative is a good policy. The funds that have not been used in 2005 will be transferred to 2006. This is for the children who did not achieve the year 3 minimum national reading benchmark in 2003. They are able to access $700 in the form of a voucher to achieve remedial help through approved brokers. Interestingly, the member for Jagajaga slams this again. I do not know whether the member for Jagajaga thinks we ever did anything good, but she slams this again as being wrong, out of kilter and not representative. The member for Jagajaga said this money should be sent back to the schools, yet when we send Investing in Our Schools money to the schools she says that is wrong and we should be dealing through the state bureaucracies. On the one hand, she says we should be sending money back to schools for literacy initiatives and, on the other hand, she says we should not be doing it in the Investing in Our Schools program. There is a good deal of hypocrisy there.

Interestingly, New South Wales and Tasmania have had a big take-up—69 per cent for New South Wales and 61 per cent for Tasmania—but my home state of Western Australia had only a 30 per cent take-up. The crying shame of it all is that the member for Jagajaga’s state had only a 12 per cent take-up of this initiative. You have to ask the question: why? It has nothing to do with implication; it has to do with the fact that in many cases the voucher initiative could not be delivered to some of the states because not all states were reporting children’s performances against the national literacy benchmark to parents. So how could it be delivered if they did not have the information?

These states deliberately tried to subvert and sink this initiative because they are ideologically opposed to it. In Western Australia, for example, the previous minister, Alan Carpenter, who is now the Premier, railed against this initiative. That is why there is a low take-up rate. We know that in Victoria—the member for Jagajaga’s state—the bureaucratic bungling by that state and the obfuscation by the education bureaucracy was largely the reason why Victoria did not take up this initiative and give it to the young children who quite rightly deserve remedial treatment and remedial action.

In terms of the amendments by regulation, the extension of regulation-making powers will introduce greater flexibility, allowing the government to expedite the reallocation of funds between programs because of unexpected changes in circumstances in the delivery of school programs. We have already seen this occurring in the voucher program and the Investing in Our Schools program. They are very good initiatives which I am pleased to see the Labor Party supporting, albeit reluctantly, if you listen to the member for Jagajaga.

The Investing in Our Schools program is the main reason why I am very pleased to speak on this bill today. It is a sensational program for schools throughout Australia. It is a $1 billion program, with about $700 million going to the government school sector and $300 million going to the non-government school sector. That is over the period 2005 to 2008. Schools in this program can apply for up to $150,000. If they do not successfully take the whole lot in the first year—say, they take $10,000 to start with—they can continue to apply for funds from this program over this period. They are doing that and, as we have heard, they are doing it in a rush. In my electorate, for example, it is a highly popular initiative. It is really pleasing to see that the take-up has been so high and so welcomed.

I am going to outline to the House a number of the projects that have been funded in my electorate and some of the responses I have had from schools. If you listen to the Labor Party, you would think this is a rort and is wrong in its delivery. The member for Jagajaga called it a mess. All I can say is that it is a happy mess because I have not met one school principal or school body yet that wants to give the money back. In fact, they are really happy to be involved in this program and they have contacted me in droves because suddenly it is seeping through. Not all of them quite understood what was going on. Initially there was a slow take-up, but then it turned into a rush once they all started talking to each other. The good, hardworking P&Cs, parent bodies and school principals are out there with projects that they have wanted to deliver to their schools for years and have not had the funds to do so.

One of the interesting things that the member opposite stated was that this was a pork-barrelling initiative. She talked about there being only $500,000 on average going to Labor Party electorates and $700,000 going to Liberal electorates. The fact is that, if you apply for these funds, there is a good chance you will get them. If you do not apply for these funds—this is the crux of the matter—you have no chance of getting them. Why are schools more likely to be applying—if you listen to the member for Jagajaga—from coalition seats than from Labor seats? It is because we are promoting the initiative. I have written to all of the schools in my electorate—the government schools and non-government schools—and told them about this marvellous initiative. I have told them that I will endeavour to put in a support letter for the worthy projects for their schools.

Just to demonstrate, even before this project got up and running, I happened to go to the Jarrahdale Primary School in my electorate, which is only a small school. The teacher there, Mr Ross Murray, happened to say to me last Anzac Day that they were really keen to get some money because, with fewer than 100 kids in a small town, they were struggling to raise the money to build a shade over their playing area. You have heard the story about the kids that cannot go out during the summer in Western Australia because the monkey bars are too hot and the play equipment is too hot to sit on. Mr Murray wanted to put a shade over the play equipment at his school so that the kids could use it, but he could not raise the $12,000-odd to do it. Mr Murray is very happy now because not only did they get the money but also they have a shade structure over their playground equipment. This is something real and tangible for their school and they are very happy to have had it delivered. I can tell you that I am very welcome at Jarrahdale Primary School and many of the other schools in my electorate because they know that we are delivering the programs that the Labor Party dropped the ball on.

Why are schools so bereft of funds for these programs? During my career as a schoolteacher—and I was a teacher off and on for 18 years; I was not very politically active in those days so it was not very obvious to me—I could always tell when the Labor Party was in government because they were big spenders on the wrong sorts of programs. They would pull the money out of state schools, because they are their schools, as an area of savings. As a result, maintenance of the schools and the projects that were implemented in the schools during the administration of a Labor government at a state level fell by the wayside. It was not until a coalition government got back in again with decent receipts and budget surpluses that money could be put back into school infrastructure. During Labor’s reign, paint comes off the railings and gutters fall off roofs, but when there is a change of government they start fixing these things up. Currently, there are Labor governments in every state in Australia. Why are schools so bereft of infrastructure? Because the state Labor governments have stopped investing in their own schools and they are begging somebody else to go in and help them with these necessary items.

The member for Jagajaga described this initiative as pork-barrelling. She was quoted in an article entitled ‘School aid rorted: Labor MP’ in the West Australian newspaper as saying:

The Federal Government is rorting its Investing in Our Schools program by channelling more money into Liberal-held seats at the expense of Labor seats, according to ... Jenny Macklin.

Five WA electorates getting the most money under the scheme, Kalgoorlie, O’Connor, Pearce, Forrest and Canning, were all held by Liberal MPs.

Let me go through these seats. Kalgoorlie is at about six per cent, O’Connor is at about 25 per cent or some such figure, Forrest is in double figures at over 10 per cent and, surprise surprise, I am at 9.6 per cent. I cannot see any pork-barrelling in marginal seats there. The reason more money is not put into schools in Labor held seats is that Labor members do not promote them. As I said, I write to the schools and I promote them. My wife teaches at a school in the electorate of Swan—I was hoping the member would still be in the chamber so that I could explain this to him. Her school, South Perth Primary School, is unaware of the availability of this money. I wonder why! The Labor Party do not want to tell the schools of this good federal government initiative, so they are not promoting it. If they do not promote it, the uptake is obviously going to be much less.

If the member for Swan will not write to his schools and tell them the money is available—I probably cannot write to the schools—I will encourage one of my Senate colleagues to write to all the schools in the electorate of Swan and tell them this money from the Investing in Our Schools program is available for infrastructure and maintenance programs in their schools. Then we will see the uptake in marginal electorates such as Swan and Cowan in Western Australia. I suspect that this is occurring right across Australia. The Labor members are trying to dumb down this initiative because it is not theirs and they do not support it. Mind you, I bet that when the schools take it up the members do not go out to the schools and say, ‘You really should give that money back.’ You will not see that at all. The Labor members know it is a highly popular program, but they are not trying to get it up above the radar because it is not their initiative and they do not have any interest in promoting good government policy.

Interestingly, the member for Jagajaga, who slams this and says it is all a rort, is on a margin of 4.5 per cent in her seat in the state of Victoria. I would have thought that if the member for Jagajaga wanted to be re-elected, particularly with the Labor Party’s woes in Victoria at the moment, she might actually want to promote some good programs in her schools rather than talk them down. I am sure that the parent bodies there would be very happy to have these sorts of infrastructure agreements.

Let me turn to the ridiculous behaviour over pork-barrelling. The state government assessment panels, loosely known as SATs, are state government advisory bodies. So state Labor government advisory bodies go out and assess these programs and make recommendations to us, and we take their recommendations. I will tell you how strong the recommendations are. Falcon Primary School in my electorate received over $100,000 for landscaping its grounds, airconditioning of special services, block floor coverings, school interior painting, library computer benchtops, data cabling and play equipment upgrades. These were all things the school wanted and they got over $117,000. But the thing they really wanted was a freezer room, costing $16,000, which the state assessment panel did not think was a worthy item. I am very disappointed by that because, when I first went to this school about this program, that was the main item they said they wanted. So they got what they did not want and did not get what they did want. This is how much integrity this program has: the assessment panel’s recommendation to us was against the wishes of the local member and, as a result, the school was well funded but not for the things they wanted. Mind you, I am still going to try hard for the freezer room because they still want it. They still have not got up to $150,000, so we hope that in another round of funding we can convince the assessment panel that the freezer room is needed for the school canteen.

One of the other reasons we are having problems with this item in Western Australia—and I will certainly be putting out a press release about this—is that people were not exactly sure of how they should apply. They had the option of having the program funds delivered directly to the school or through the state education department. And guess what the state education department has done? It has taken a fee of 11 per cent to handle each one of these programs. It is skimming off 11 per cent as a handling fee. If you take 11 per cent off the Falcon Primary School’s $117,000, the department is getting about $12,000 or $13,000 and the school then has to find that money to do this program.

I am sure that the Western Australian Minister for Education and Training, Ljiljanna Ravlich, whom I know and have a lot of respect for, would not really be happy with this because she knows how important this money is to the schools. I know that the previous minister wrote to her, but obviously the departmental officials wrote back and talked about handling fees, compliance and all that sort of stuff. I am going to be ensuring that my schools do not go through the state education department, because this is how they are being treated.

The other thing the state education department has imposed on these bodies is a requirement to use approved government contractors to do the work. So the state government gives Falcon Primary School a list of approved contractors—businessmen—from Perth who have to travel for over an hour down to Falcon Primary School to do the work. In an area where we have a shortage of people working on these sorts of projects, why can’t the local small businessmen apply to build these structures and do this work? Because the state education department has imposed this condition on the schools.

I could go through many of these programs, but I just want to outline one of them. Pinjarra Senior High School has been in dire need of funding for some time and, as a result, was very happy when it received $58,000. Most principals, particularly in government schools, do not like to say too much because they know they will be targeted by state Labor governments and authorities if they speak out, but Pinjarra principal Beth Aitken was quite happy to say on the record yesterday:

I was absolutely delighted that Pinjarra high school received funding under the Investing in Our Schools program. We planned months ago to apply for round 2 funding. After the extensive exercise, our hard work paid off. During the approval process, which was very thorough, we were continually asked how we intended to use these funds in accordance with the guidelines. As schools may apply for up to $150,000, we have every intention of applying for further funding.

This is a school principal who is very happy with the program. So the Socialist Left of the Labor Party and the member for Jagajaga, who are trying to dumb down this program by saying it is uneven, inequitable et cetera, are totally wrong. The government is doing this program in cooperation with the schools because they are happy with it. The member for Jagajaga talks about doing it in cooperation with the states, but why would you when you see the conditions imposed by the Western Australian Department of Education and Training? It is obvious that we have to go directly to the schools. As a result, the politics of envy is raising its head.

Many other schools in my electorate have been beneficiaries of this program. Just to outline how widespread across the electorate they are, Cecil Andrews Senior High School at Armadale received $87,000 for an ICT upgrade and Excelsior Primary School at Canning Vale, a brand new primary school which thought that, because it opened only last year, it would not be eligible for any of this, received $150,000 for ICT, library, music resources and sporting infrastructure. So it is a great program and it is well supported. I support this bill. (Time expired)

See this speech in context