Jenny 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.

See this speech in context