Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Or sugar, indeed. I am looking forward to seeing their new pay packets; obviously the member is keen to ensure that bureaucrats are not overpaid in the system. I suggest from that that he is approaching the minister about reviewing the pay of the federal bureaucrats—a worthwhile project, according to the member for Moreton. He might also want to impose his Stalinist review of whether they are card-carrying members of any particular party, since that is obviously also an issue he feels decreases their ability to do their job. I am sure that, in the great spirit of the bipartisan, non-political approach that he always brings to every contribution he makes in a debate, he will not mind checking whether they are Labor or Liberal card-carrying members and ensuring that they correct that membership.

I want to make the point that schools exist in all of our electorates. Delivering education is one of the biggest service delivery programs that state and federal governments run. As a result, there always is a huge capital works program, there is always an unending list of demands for renewal of buildings and facilities, not to mention the needs for modernising as new technologies and programs come into place. In particular, for example, around vocational education and training there is the need for schools to provide labs, kitchens, workshops and so forth. The demands on capital works programs are something that all governments struggle to meet. It is quite clear that it is the sort of thing where you never actually reach the bottom of the list—it is never going to end.

I welcomed the federal government’s Investing in Our Schools Program as I understood it to be an opportunity for schools across the country to look at particular smaller scale capital projects that they might be able to implement outside their normal capital works program. I thought it was a good idea and a worthwhile thing to do. I say to the member for Moreton—and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training, who is at the table, would not do this; in fact, I have never heard him do it, to be honest—that to devalue a good and worthwhile program by simply using it to attack other levels of government does not particularly help anybody. Certainly, on this side of the House we have had some concerns about that sort of behaviour. Many of us have had experience with schools telling us that we are not allowed to open things even though we have supported their application to the government, particularly if we have an aggressive government member in our area. In fact, I do have a particularly aggressive government Senate member in my area, and some schools are being told that they are not even to invite me to these sorts of openings. I think that is a foolish and counterproductive approach to take. The program is good, and it does do worthwhile things, and we do support the applications that our schools put in. I think when oppositions do that it is incumbent upon governments to treat with respect the elected member for the electorate. I would encourage particularly the parliamentary secretary at the table to continue to give a strong message to his own members—I am convinced that he does not do this himself—that that is not an appropriate way to behave and it is counterproductive to the program.

Having said that, I am going to criticise the parliamentary secretary at the table. This program has been popular and many local public schools in my electorate have taken advantage of the funding available to develop many projects. ICT projects in particular have been very popular. These all enhance the learning environment of schools. Most local public schools in my electorate have received some funding under the 2005 and 2006 rounds of the Investing in Our Schools Program.

When the funding rounds were opened and applications invited, I, like many colleagues in this place, wrote to each of the local schools informing them of this program and the closing date, and enclosing a copy of the guidelines of the program for their information. Many of them invited me on site to show me what they were proposing. I provided what advice I could to them and encouraged them to get their applications in, and indeed offered to put in letters of support for those applications. Local school principals and parents and citizens associations started to complete the documentation for applying for funds and collating the quotes. To be honest, that was a bit of a challenge for many schools. It was not something they were familiar with doing. But most of them got those processes in place. Then they crossed their fingers and hoped that the particular important capital works program in their local school did get funding.

When the Prime Minister announced the new allocation of $181 million to the program late in February, I again welcomed the extra funds. Again I wrote to all local schools making them aware that the final funding round of the program was now open. I knew as I read the guidelines for the final funding round that there would be some controversy. Buried in the guidelines is a sad and sneaky change to the amount of funding local schools had been expecting from the government in this program.

Local school principals and P&C presidents in my electorate knew instantly what the sneaky change in the guidelines meant for their school. Instantly my phone started ringing, the emails started flowing and handwritten letters from P&C members started arriving. The main thrust of the complaints stems from the government shifting the goalposts. I have received numerous letters from school principals and local P&Cs, but none better sums up the sneaky way the government has shifted the goalposts than one I received from a local public school. The letter from the principal, which I received on February 23, said:

We are incensed by the changes to the original guidelines ... Imagine our shock ... Since the beginning of the programme, DEST had been stating and reaffirming that government schools had access to $150,000. However, without notice, this amount has been reduced by a third but only to those schools that had not expended the entire $150,000 prior to this year ... What has annoyed my community and I is that the ‘playing field’ is no longer even, that groups that have complied fully to the goals and aims of the programme now find themselves disadvantaged for doing just that.

This particular school had a couple of very worthwhile projects planned. During the last round of funding, the school received a grant to install air conditioning. But with the climate change debate, some of the students realised that air conditioning contributed to emissions. The students thought that this year’s project should try to be carbon neutral. So they suggested that solar panels should be investigated. I think that is a great initiative of the school. Not only were the parents consulted but so was the student body. They were excited that they had come up with what they thought was a great idea that would contribute to a decrease in carbon emissions and the global warming issue.

Regrettably, this project is now impossible because the new funding limit imposed in this round by the government means the school is ineligible to apply under the 2007 funding round. This is despite the school having been informed by the department that its balance in the final year of funding was nearly $33,000. A local P&C president sent me a letter on 12 March. It said:

Why did the programme’s rules alter so drastically? Who would have expected the total grant would be reduced and the rules would change ... we have been extremely disadvantaged by the changes and this has put a disappointing end to our plans to showcase what public schools can achieve.

I made a representation on 23 February to the parliamentary secretary, who is at the table. I both faxed and mailed the letter. This was at the point at which I had become aware of it, because of the email from the principal. I immediately faxed it to the parliamentary secretary to get his response and find out what had happened. To date I have not received an acknowledgement, and certainly no response. The 2007 guidelines state on page 3:

Under the 2007 guidelines a school community may be funded for projects that will take their total approved grants from all rounds of the IOSP up to a maximum of $100,000 over the life of the programme.

The 2005 guidelines—that is, the first round of the program—said, also on page 3:

The limit for funding in respect of any one school is $150,000 over 2005-2008.

Not surprisingly, many of those schools on getting those guidelines and seeing that they would be looking at $150,000 up until 2008 decided that the best way to manage it—many of them are small schools—was to stage it over the years of the program. That is a logical thing to do, one would think, as with the school that put the air conditioning in last year and wanted to proceed with the kids’ initiative to put solar panels in under this year’s application.

As we on this side constantly warn, the government has a tendency to be tricky and sneaky. I am very disappointed that has occurred with this program. To add insult to injury the government has now started to run a line in the media to justify this sneaky change in the 2007 guidelines. The so-called Wollongong based Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, as ABC Illawarra reported last Friday, suggested:

... the misunderstanding lies in the fact that the original program has ended.

The ABC Illawarra report continued:

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

Where in the Prime Minister’s media statement announcing the extra allocation of funds for the Investing in Our Schools Program does he state that the original IOSP had ended? In fact, it is very clear that the original Investing in Our Schools Program is still continuing because it has been made clear that the 2007 round is the last funding round in the program.

The government seeks to suggest that local principals and P&Cs have simply misunderstood the original intention of the Investing in Our Schools Program and the funding that would be available. Local schools and their P&Cs have misunderstood nothing. They were clearly led to believe one thing in 2005 and had it repeated in 2006. Further, the department advised them, before the release of the 2007 guidelines, what their balance was on the account that they could claim. They clearly believed that the funding for any one school was $150,000 for the period 2005 to 2008.

Now the 2007 guidelines for the final funding round have inexplicably changed, and when asked why by local schools and local P&Cs the claim made is that the original Investing in Our Schools Program has ended. If the senator is wrong then I would suggest that the parliamentary secretary at the table should contact the local ABC and confirm that that advice is wrong and let the senator know that it is wrong. No other member of the government that I have heard has been using the justification of Senator Fierravanti-Wells to explain why the 2007 guidelines renege in such a sneaky way on the previous commitments of funding.

I suspect the minister and the parliamentary secretary still do not have any firm justification or explanation for the guideline change—I am a bit bemused as to what it could be myself—and that is why I have not yet received a response to my representation on behalf of local schools and P&Cs in my electorate. The government should reaffirm its original commitment to the funding limit available to any one school as was stated very clearly in the 2005 guidelines of the Investing in Our Schools Program.

Local schools have planned projects on the basis of those particular guidelines. Local members such as me have endorsed the program and supported and encouraged schools to participate. In fact, I have taken a pretty hard line with schools in my area which did not take up the federal government’s offer and put applications in. I have asked them why and looked at what they could do to progress that. This government should not be sneaky with this program. It is a program that is valued, as members on both sides of the House have said.

People are very confused as to why the goalposts changed at the very end of the program. In the case of the particular school I referred to, you have a group of kids who, in all good conscience, participated in putting forward suggestions—really worthwhile suggestions—into the program and who are now very disappointed at the waste of time, because when the new guidelines came out they found out that the $33,000 they had been told by the department was theirs was not there. It is a foolish decision, I would suggest, that has no real benefit.

The worst thing that could come of this is that the government finds that the full moneys are not expended at the end of the program because schools that were participating, were active in supporting the program and were staging their projects now cannot put applications in. I would hate to see that happen. I would suggest that the government review that decision, particularly given that it has allocated extra money to the program, and look at reopening it to those schools who had good, planned programs in place and are now very disappointed that such a change has denied them the opportunity to participate in that final stage of the program.

See this speech in context