Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am not referring to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but to the member for Flinders. This government should govern. If they do something that is brilliant—and they get a tick from me on it—why wouldn’t they go ahead, run with it and go forward? They say: ‘We need to save the money; there was never any intention,’ despite what Minister Nelson said. They really need to say there was never going to be enough money to do it.

I also spoke to Jenni Wilkins, the principal of Birrong Girls High School. I asked her what the impact was for her in relation to this. What they have been able to do already is upgrade the toilets in the school and also upgrade the home economics area to a hospitality grade kitchen. That is significant for that school and it has provided a great facility. The girls will be able to do a great deal more. They are also looking to improve the hall stage lighting. What else did they want to do? They decided that they would do things in small steps.

This is not a Gordon Gekko principal. This is not a Gordon Gekko school. This is not someone who decided to go in and grab the lot, as virtually all of the school principals did. If you make a compact, if the hand is out there and you shake, if they say that it is up to $150,000 over a four-year program, you do not expect to have to count your fingers at the end of it to see how many are gone. Who have you shaken hands with—the devil or the mafia? No, this is the federal government of Australia, intervening in an area to provide a significant new program.

But what has happened to Birrong? Here is the email I got:

Dear Michael

On behalf of the community of Birrong Girls High School I wish to register our disappointment at the Federal government’s recent changes to the Investing in Our Schools Programme. We are one of those schools adversely affected by the changes to the Programme. We have a measured and strategic approach to applying for and spending the programme’s funds that involves community consultation ... so far we have received $91,758 for three very successful projects.

This year we had planned to make a submission for an additional $50,000 to $60,000 to convert an old science demonstration room into a much needed new technology learning space.

Our regret is that we believed that each school was entitled to a total of $150,000 over three years and that we didn’t grab the cash early in the process. We were surprised that the goal posts were shifted in the middle of the game!

We hope that you pursue this issue with the Minister for the Department of Education, Science and Training on our behalf.

And, as promised, I am. What a bunch of dummies this government is, to take a program that was so singularly politically potent and that did so much good Australia-wide and to say, ‘We can’t do it.’

I have been around for a while. I have a bit of a memory with regard to these things, and that extends to the fact that, if you run a program for a period of time, you can work out ways to fund it. It does not all have to be done from within a program. The former minister said that the Investing in Our Schools Program had up to $150,000—not up to $100,000; up to $150,000—for every government school in Australia and up to $75,000 for every non-government school. What are all of the people who are relying on that expectation effectively told by the new minister? ‘Well, it’s a hundred grand, not 150, and we never intended to give you all the money anyway.’

This is a falsehood. Somewhere in the process a decision has been made that they will cut it because they have to put money into other areas. Mr Deputy Speaker, I remember—as you will and as every person in the gallery will—that in the six months before the 2004 election the Howard government spent $21 billion of our money buying their way into every interest group they could find to buy their way back for the next election. That is a lot of money. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have news for you; I have news for the parliamentary secretary; I have news for everyone, including the former Deputy Prime Minister, who is in the gallery—Tim, good to see you. This time around it is not $21 billion; this time around it is double or nothing: $40 billion has already been flagged. This is the Prime Minister’s new approach when things get really desperate: ‘We’ll play double or nothing.’

It is not just my money. It is not just yours. Have a look at every individual person in the gallery, which is filling up for question time. That is $40 billion of our money—everybody in this room; at the table or in their seats—for the federal coalition to buy its way back. In that situation wouldn’t you think that a program as successful, and indeed as politically smart, as Investing in Our Schools could get part of the $40 billion? Wouldn’t you think that they might just think this was a really dumb thing to do? It was a compact, a shake of the hand, with every individual principal in Australia in every school. It was Minister Nelson and not this minister. Wouldn’t you think that that shake of the hand would be rewarded with trust, that it would not be rewarded with having to count your fingers after you have shaken that hand? Wouldn’t you think that every principal in Australia could trust this government?

This government has just kicked an enormous own goal with regard to Investing in Our Schools. I do not want to see it back come the end of the year, but I think every school in Australia wants to be assured that the stupidity of knocking off this amount of money is undone. I am sure the Prime Minister and the minister for education will be contacted by the principals council. Indeed, every principal in Australia should say, ‘You shouldn’t knock off the extra $50,000.’ This is a crazy own goal. (Time expired)

See this speech in context