Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Hansard source

I take this opportunity to thank all members of the House who took part in this debate. I particularly want to thank the members of the coalition who provided most thoughtful and considered contributions: the members for Canning, Bass, Ryan, Riverina, Cowper, Hasluck and Fisher.

The Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill 2006 contains measures that will provide increased Australian government funding to meet the immediate needs of school communities throughout the nation. Under our government, all Australian schools have been funded at record levels. Through increased financial assistance to schools, particularly schools serving the neediest communities, the government seeks to improve the outcomes from schools and thus provide a brighter future for all Australian students.

This bill contains measures that will enable more funding in 2006 to directly benefit schools and students in response to the actual needs of schools. Over $186 million for small scale infrastructure projects in state government schools is being brought forward from 2008 to 2006. To meet the overwhelming response to the Investing in Our Schools program, under the program the government is providing $700 million to deliver small scale projects which will improve and enhance the infrastructure of state government schools, in accordance with priorities identified by the school communities.

This program has proved enormously popular. I am delighted that the parliamentary secretary, the Hon. Pat Farmer, is in the House for he has been a great champion of this program and has assisted enormously in its delivery. More than 8,300 funding requests were received in 2005 from state government schools. These consisted of over 4,800 applications received in round 1 for grants of up to $50,000 and over 3,500 applications in round 2 for grants of up to $150,000.

I am delighted to report to the House that schools in every single federal electorate across Australia have been allocated funding through this program. I reject completely the baseless—and I might say vindictive—claim by the Labor Party that there is any bias or rorting of this program or that funds are being directed to coalition seats. That is outrageous.

Independent state based assessment advisory panels, consisting of school principals and parents, were established to assess applications. They were assisted by guidelines provided by the Department of Education, Science and Training. Neither the Australian government nor the state government have a vote. The member for Jagajaga ought to note that these panels were not looking at electorate boundaries when they put forward their assessments; they made their assessments solely on schools’ needs. This shameless Labor attack is in fact directed at the people on these independent school and parent panels.

If there are more schools in one electorate then there is more likelihood that more schools will apply for funding; therefore, more funding might be applied to schools in that electorate. This is not rocket science. It is a fact—one that we rejoice in on this side of the House—that the coalition holds more seats than the opposition. If there are more schools in coalition held electorates and there are more coalition held seats, of course the figures are obvious. So the claims are totally baseless. Take Queensland, for example, where 25 per cent of funding has gone to ALP seats. That is in line with the number of seats that they hold. It is the same in Tasmania where ALP-held seats received more than 53 per cent of the funding. Let me take the Northern Territory—67 per cent of funding in the Northern Territory went to the ALP held seat. The member for Jagajaga has led this charge for Labor. Let us look at her electorate of Jagajaga, which was allocated over $880,000 through the program to help schools in her community.

To put this in perspective, my electorate was allocated $315,000. I have no complaint, but that was almost one-third of the amount that schools were allocated in Jagajaga. I think it is a sad reflection on the member for Jagajaga. She complains about the program, yet her electorate has been allocated almost three times the amount of funding for schools in my electorate—and I think that says it all. I would also draw to her attention the fact that her electorate has 49 schools and mine has 58. While the member for Jagajaga complains, it is interesting to note that many of her colleagues are deathly quiet. I do not hear the member for Canberra, for example, condemning the $900,000 allocated in her electorate to local schools. I do not hear the member for Bendigo complaining about the $1 million allocated for schools in his electorate.

Let us not forget that this program came into being after urgent need was identified in the state school sector due to the chronic neglect of state government schools by state and territory governments. Already more than $73 million has been paid to schools for much needed projects—basic infrastructure such as airconditioning, shade structures, computer equipment, library resources, classroom improvements and playground equipment. Funding is being brought forward from 2008 so that state government schools do not have to wait for funding for much needed infrastructure projects. These are projects which just do not get priority from the state governments. Let me use a school in Jagajaga as an example. It received funding to repair an oval that is more than 30 years old. Due to the financial restraints imposed by the state Labor government in Victoria, the oval has received minimal maintenance. I have been advised that the surface is rock-hard and uneven, resulting in students sustaining frequent injuries when playing ball games or participating in athletic activities. Also, there are no goalposts on the oval for children to play football and soccer—which is unusual for a school in Victoria. This is in the electorate of the member for Jagajaga. Does the state government in Victoria just not care?

When was the last time the member for Jagajaga wrote to her state Labor counterparts on behalf of schools in her electorate calling on them to properly fund schools? In many cases schools have been seeking funding year after year but have been knocked back by state governments. One school advised me about requesting funding from its state government for a decade without success—and the Labor members talk about a delay in the delivery of this program. We are talking about schools that state Labor governments have kept waiting for years for funding. That is why the Investing in Our Schools program is so important: it responds to the needs of school communities now; it does not make them wait 10, 20 or 30 years. Having received reports like these from principals and parents, I am staggered by the negativity and the lack of support for this program by Labor, but particularly by the criticism from the member for Jagajaga.

She was rather keen in her speech to offer me some advice. I suggest that she spend less time sitting in her Parliament House suite and more time visiting local schools and talking to students, parents and teachers to hear how valuable this program is to them. I suggest the member for Jagajaga urge her state counterparts to meet their responsibilities for funding state government schools properly. This program is unique: it is giving parents and teachers the opportunity to tell the Australian government directly the needs of their schools. It is time for Labor to stop criticising the hardworking parents and principals in these groups who have been involved at all stages of the development and implementation of the Investing in Our Schools program and whose only aim is to provide the best possible learning environment for their students.

The government supports the provision of funding for schools on a needs basis, and this principle underpins the Australian government funding for schools. It has always been the intention of the Australian government to provide maximum general recurrent funding to special schools. Under the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004, special schools are funded at the maximum recurrent grant rate. A school is classified as a special school if it is recognised by the state or territory education minister as a special school and provides a special education program. In some states this recognition does not extend to schools that primarily cater for students with social, emotional or behavioural difficulties or who are at risk of leaving mainstream schooling. The amendments to the act correct this anomaly and fulfil the intention under the SES funding arrangements of providing maximum general recurrent funding to this very important class of non-government schools.

The pilot Tutorial Voucher Initiative and other responses to improve the literacy levels of Australian students are yet another example of this government responding to the abject failure of state governments to adequately resource state government schools or respond to the learning needs of their students. The Tutorial Voucher Initiative has successfully assisted some 6,200 students nationally during 2005. This valuable assistance was provided through $700 worth of one-to-one tuition in reading. Of these students, 5,443 completed a full course of tuition. There was a high level of community interest in the pilot. The department’s national hotlines have received over 10,000 calls about the pilot since it was announced in 2004 and the program has been very well received by those who participated. The findings from the independent evaluation already show that 87.7 per cent of parents who responded to the parent/care giver survey were satisfied or very satisfied with the pilot overall. Thirty-eight per cent of participating parents nationwide responded to the survey and over 80 per cent of those felt their child had improved in reading and enjoyed reading. Eighty-five per cent of responding parents felt their child had increased in confidence in reading as a result of the tuition. Sixty-nine per cent of responding tutors felt most or all of the students they tutored had improved in reading and most students appear to have improved between their pre- and post-tuition assessments.

All state and territory education ministers agreed at the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs in May 2005 that they would directly contact parents with eligible students or, where this was not possible, the school principals would make that contact. In states where parents were contacted in a timely way by the state education authorities, the take-up was high. In New South Wales, where parents were contacted directly, the take-up was 70 per cent of eligible students. In contrast, 12 per cent of eligible students in Victoria and 18 per cent in Queensland registered. Why would that be? Children in Victoria and Queensland were disadvantaged by the failure of the Victorian and Queensland governments to do what they agreed. In Victoria letters were sent to parents after the closing date for the pilot. In Queensland they did not even bother to send letters.

The Australian government intends that children in those states who failed to get what they had agreed to give them and who were unable to get help with their reading under the pilot Tutorial Voucher Initiative in 2005 will be able to do so. Many eligible parents and their children missed out on getting any reading assistance not through any fault of theirs but due to the inaction of state governments. So, as a matter of good faith, the government is making available funding this year to students who missed out on the valuable assistance. The bill will ensure that funding from the pilot program will be available in 2006 to provide assistance for students who most need extra support.

This bill responds to the specific needs of schools and school communities. The government will continue to identify and respond to community aspirations for Australian schools to ensure that our students are well prepared to participate fully in Australian society and contribute effectively within an international context. I commend this bill to the House.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Ms Macklin’s amendment) stand part of the question.

See this speech in context