Brendan 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.

See this speech in context