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

They have a problem. They cannot effectively run them unless they have the capacity to deliver industrial strength power. That is an own goal—not understanding the difference between single-phase power and three-phase power. The bigger own goal in this is that the government has a brilliant program that cuts through but, firstly it knocks it off early and, secondly, it betrays the absolute trust that every principal in every public school and every private school throughout Australia has in a Commonwealth government that promised a program over four years providing schools with up to $150,000. Halfway through the program, the government says, ‘Sorry, we’re going to knock off one-third of the money.’

Gordon Gekko, in the 1980s film Wall Street, had a simple motto: ‘greed is good’. Any school principal who followed Gordon Gekko’s fundamental principle and who said: ‘There might be a problem here, so I’ll put in for the total $150,000 right now; I’ll go for the lot in rounds 1 and 2; I’ll go for the money and be able to produce the box as a result,’ you would have to say was farsighted. Those principals would have to run in and grab the money before the rest of the principals got any. They were assured by Brendan Nelson, when he was minister, that there would be up to $150,000 for every government school in Australia and up to $75,000 for every non-government school.

This is crazy stuff. This is a government that has gone to la la land. Why would a government, unless it were really stupid, cut a potent program that cut across every corner of Australia—marginal, non-marginal, Labor, Liberal, National Party, Independent; you name it? The program cut through an area where the government had no native responsibility but where it was able to do something for people that is palpable, that is real, that they can see, that is concrete. The government can provide air conditioning in schools, it can upgrade computer technology in a school, it can provide shade covering—and it can provide maximum political effect for itself with a relatively small amount of expenditure.

It should be a no-brainer that the government continue with this program, but what have the government done? They have said, ‘We can’t do it.’ In February Minister Bishop announced: ‘The government is going to provide another $181 million’—that is what this bill gives us—‘and $127 million of that is extra money to enable this program to go through in 2007, with a smaller amount for the private schools. I’m glad to announce that, but a lot of schools in the past have not applied for the full amount of money—they have only applied for a certain amount—so we are going to change the cap so that you can only apply for $100,000; you can’t apply for $150,000.’ They changed the rules. But Minister Bishop said, ‘No, of course we’re not changing the rules.’

It was never intended that it would be the case that that would happen. They have announced that it is going to stop earlier. They said:

To give all state government schools the opportunity to access the new funding—

and let me tell you that they have all had the opportunity to access it right from the start—

schools that have already received funding at or above $100,000 will not be eligible to apply in 2007.

What did Minister Nelson say? He said something different. But Minister Bishop said:

It is a competitive grants process based on need, and in rounds 1, 2 and 3 schools could apply for up to a limit of $150,000. It was never intended, nor was there funding for, all schools to receive $150,000 ...

We have not only got an own goal here; we have got a con job. It means that, if the current minister is correct, there never was any intention in the first place of coughing up the total amount of money. If that is the case, the government has told a lie to every school principal in Australia. That is not a very wise thing to do. What did the former minister say? During the 2004 election campaign he said that this program would continue through to the end of 2008. He said:

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

That is pretty clear. The department also issued advice at the time saying that schools could apply for several projects up to the $150,000 limit. It has come as a surprise to all of those schools to realise now that, although the limit was there, the reality is that whatever you intended to do is not going to happen.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you will not be surprised—and I was not surprised—that I have received a number of calls from school principals in my electorate. I have spoken to those principals this morning and in the last week. When the principal of Condell Park Primary School rang me to tell me that this was on the government website, I said: ‘That can’t be real. They couldn’t be so stupid that they would give with one hand and take away with the other.’ She said, ‘Well, it’s true.’ So I went and had a look at it. It is absolutely true. It was Alex Mandell of Condell Park primary that I was talking to. I said, ‘What is the impact for you at Condell Park primary?’ The impact there is that those things that they have already done will go ahead—that is fine. They already have them and they are in the bag. But they will not be able to do all of the rest of what they wanted to do. That is significant.

At Condell Park primary, which is currently in my electorate but which will become part of the electorate of Banks, they wanted to do a technology upgrade. The first grant was for $40,000 and that is all they have taken so far. They had the expectation that they could apply for $110,000. They can now apply for $60,000. The principal at Condell Park Public School is not a happy camper.

Who else is affected by this? Audrey McCallum, the principal of Bankstown West, is affected. They are lucky. So far they have had $50,000 from the first round and then $82,000 from the second round, so they have a total of $132,000. The expectation was that they could front up for another $18,000 for play equipment. They can no longer do that. What did they get? They got a COLA—a covered outdoor learning area—and shade cloth over the play area. They got a new hall courtesy of the state government. They have things that need to be done in the school and they are on a list as one out of seven in the area to get a security fence to improve conditions in the school. It is just around the corner from my mum’s. I know the school well. This is a school that needs help. The help that it has it appreciates—the principal, the parents and the kids do. Why would you break a fundamental promise and a fundamental contractual agreement unless you are just plain stupid? It is really crazy stuff.

We also have Chester Hill Public School. I presented a flag to the principal, Phil Van de Wyck, and the school, and then we had a tour of the school. It is a large property. They have been able to do a great deal so far. But I discussed this situation and the fact that it had changed and I had spoken to the other principals. The principal said: ‘We’ve got a problem. We need three-phase power for the school. We have air-conditioners but we have been told that we cannot run them because they draw too much power.’ So here is a school that has air-conditioning equipment but will never be able to use it unless they can raise the money. The expectation that they would be able to get it was because of the rest of this funding—up to $150,000 that Minister Nelson promised. That is another own goal by the government.

See this speech in context