Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the second reading amendment to the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill 2007 moved by the member for Perth. The second reading amendment is in the following terms:

Whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House welcomes the additional funding for the Investing in our Schools program, it notes that when making the announcement the Minister was silent on the change of criteria for Government schools halfway through the life of the program and condemns the Government for:

(1)

leaving many Government schools ineligible to apply for additional funds by reducing the funding cap from $150,000 to $100,000; and

(2)

failing to guarantee the future of the Investing in our Schools program beyond the current funding round.

The bill itself proposes an increase in funding for infrastructure grants in government and non-government schools, capital grants for non-government schools and strategic initiatives in the Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs program. The purpose of the second reading amendment is to draw attention to the fact that the government has revised down the available funding for individual schools. Each school is now capped at $100,000. Those schools which decided to implement a staged strategy in applying for funding have been badly let down by this government.

The explanatory memorandum outlines the maximum amounts that may be paid for capital and capital infrastructure grants under the Investing in Our Schools Program. It is this section of the bill which concerns me. It is here that the amounts that individual schools are able to apply for are reduced. Of itself, this may not seem catastrophic when it is viewed as moving the numbers around marginally on a national level. However, the decision is catastrophic for individual schools. While the quantum increases over the triennium funding period—and I congratulate the government for that—the line item amount by school has decreased.

We can add this to the plethora of broken promises from this government. While the trail of broken promises has included those at a national security level—the war in Iraq, for example—this broken promise has a direct and immediate impact on my constituents. I would hazard a guess that it has caused some grief to the members on the other side as well.

Let me refer to the government’s own Investing in Our Schools website. This information was downloaded by my staff when the IOSP was introduced in 2005. I felt it important that I had access to specific information to answer questions from the school community. I will quote from the information that was on the website in 2005. In the section ‘Frequently asked questions’, there were two questions I wish to draw to the attention of the House. The first question asked, ‘How much can I apply for?’ The response was:

A total of $150,000 over the life of the programme. The school community should decide whether to apply for a number of small projects or one or two large ones within that total cap.

The second question asked, ‘Will my school miss out if I don’t apply in 2005?’ The response was:

No. Funding is available throughout the four years of the programme (2005-2008). Further application rounds will be announced annually.

I am advised that the minister at the time, Dr Nelson, had written to schools about the IOSP. In those letters he is reported, in the Sydney Morning Herald on 15 March 2007 at page 11, to have said:

It is anticipated that the maximum amount an individual school community will receive is $150,000 over the next four years.

I note that some government MPs are reported as not being very pleased with the decision to reduce funding available for individual schools—and good on them for raising it within their party room. I quote from the Age of 28 February 2007 at page 6:

Meanwhile, several Coalition MPs, including former education minister Brendan Nelson, raised party room concerns that cash provided for a popular schools funding program for small-scale capital works, such as new playgrounds and toilet-block upgrades had been cut.

There does appear to be some confusion in government ranks, though. Senator Fierravanti-Wells is reported to have said to the Illawarra ABC that the misunderstanding lies in the fact that the original program has ended:

The Senator says a new program then started with a different funding limit.

I am aware of a number of schools in my electorate that decided to make out their applications consistent with the original advice provided by the Department of Education, Science and Training. Those schools are now being penalised simply because they acted on the government and minister’s advice at the time. On 7 March this year I was contacted by the principal of Condell Park Primary School. This school is currently in the electorate of Blaxland but will be in the redistributed Banks electorate after the next election. In her letter and in subsequent phone conversations, the principal outlined several issues of concern, and I have her permission to raise them in the House. I wish to particularise these as I have no doubt that the experience of Condell Park Primary School is indicative of that of many other public schools.

The first issue is that which I have already raised: the guarantees given at the time that the quantum funds would be available for the three-year duration of the Investing in Our Schools Program. This school, along with many others, understood that, if it did not apply for the full $150,000 in the first year of the program, it could apply in subsequent years. The second issue was that the principal was new to the school and wanted to consult broadly with the school community to determine the particular needs of her school. This approach was determined on the basis that access to the full amount of $150,000 would be available in successive years. Being proactive, the school did actually make two submissions totalling $40,000 in the short term but obviously wanted time and local input to ensure that any potential funding was correctly targeted to the specific needs of the school and its students. Technically, Condell Park Primary School should still have the right to apply for $110,000. Under the new arrangements announced by the minister and the parliamentary secretary, this school may now only apply for $60,000. In reality, this is shortfall of $50,000.

For a school like Condell Park, this is a significant figure and one which is unlikely to be available through the usual fundraising channels. This school is located in a low socioeconomic area in south-west Sydney. The principal informed me:

The composition of the school’s community is interesting and diverse with the majority of families having a language other than English (78%) ... While parents support where they can or feel comfortable, there is no way they could ever raise $50,000 in addition to their current targets.

The intention of the school community had been to apply for funding which would allow the school to build a secure school fence or, alternatively, if that were not possible, to apply for further ICT funding. As the principal said in her original communication to me:

We know from the plethora of research available how vital good technology is especially to disadvantaged school communities such as ours. Cutting edge technology will not only engage disengaged students but also give students access to tools critical to success in our information-driven society.

Like many other school principals, Alex Mandell at Condell Park Primary School said that, had the school been aware that there was a limited amount of money available within a predetermined time frame, they would have applied earlier.

Another school has contacted me raising a similar case:

Our school applied for and was granted $75,000 for a security fence in the second round.

Our school community had intended to apply for a much needed electrical upgrade and under the original guidelines we were entitled to apply for a further $75,000. Under the new guidelines we can now apply for a further $25,000 which will not cover the cost of the upgrade.

In this case internal decisions were made by the school community on the basis of the original program guidelines provided by the government.

Both the school principals who contacted me directly have used the word ‘inequitable’ in describing their outrage at the government’s change of heart. The President of the Secondary Principals Council described it as a ‘breach of trust’ in an article on page 11 of the Sydney Morning Herald on 15 March. The President of the New South Wales Primary Principals Association explained in the same article that many schools had ‘staged their applications and had planned to complete their school improvements this year’. He further stated that ‘schools have been led down the garden path’.

This is a classic situation of an uncaring government—a government which does not hesitate to move the goalposts. Fifty thousand dollars may not be much for some schools. To many others it makes a critical difference to the manner in which our children are taught and the quality of the educational outcomes.

I have written to Minister Bishop raising my concerns on behalf of the schools in my electorate. In all fairness, that letter was only sent last week, so I cannot reasonably expect a reply by now. I do, however, look forward to the response when it arrives, as it undoubtedly will. I want to be able to explain to the schools in my electorate why they have been betrayed by this government. I need hardly point out to the House the irony of the title of this bill, given its intent. ‘Achievement’ will be severely limited through lack of ‘choice’ and lack of ‘opportunity’. I condemn the government for moving the goalposts on this program and look forward to the minister’s considered response. I commend the amendment moved by the member for Perth to the House.

This is a worthwhile program that the government has been involved in. I only ask in this instance: deliver on your original promises, because schools made choices based on the material, the commitments and the views they were given about how the program would operate over its life. It is not a situation where the government is short of funds. It is awash with money. There are a lot of other programs, I think, that could be cut or pared back if the government was looking for money. This is not one of those programs. My plea to the minister and to members opposite is that they continue to agitate for their government to deliver on its promises in this instance. I think this is one of the very worthwhile programs. It reminds me of a number of programs that Labor had in its time in government—not the big picture programs; these were small programs that fed into local communities, which were also able to build on them, but made substantial differences to those local communities because they helped empower them. They helped them complete projects that they otherwise would not have been able to undertake.

So this is not an issue about the government or the opposition. As far as I am concerned, this is a program that deserves to have the support of both sides of the House, and it has delivered to school communities in electorates on both sides of the House. Really, my plea is: reinstate the original guidelines for the length of this program; just deliver what you said you would deliver. We have not been given a proper explanation, in my view, of why the goalposts were changed, and a lot of school communities have been left, in effect, hurt and disillusioned by this and grieving about the lack of opportunities that they now have compared to what they were offered originally.

See this speech in context