Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Stuart Henry (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I recall, I was speaking just before question time and had remarked, as the member for Jagajaga had just come into the House, on her criticism of the Howard government. I remarked on its fantastic performance with respect to education and additional funding in support of education across the board. Immediately prior to my contribution the member for Brisbane made some comments about how important it is to spend money on education and training, and that you cannot spend too much. I agree with that. I think the Howard government has demonstrated that time and again since 1996.

In particular, I mention an initiative that will be a fantastic opportunity for many young Australians in developing their skills—that is, the Australian technical college. This is another great example of how the Howard government is using innovation in developing skills in education and in providing opportunities for young Australians to get out into the workplace and enjoy a successful and productive life and career by obtaining the education and skills they need.

Certainly I have had considerable experience in the skills development and apprenticeship training area over a fairly lengthy period of time, with apprenticeships and traineeships in the building and construction industry. I know only too well the great satisfaction that many young people in Australia get out of undertaking an apprenticeship and going on and becoming a tradesman, and in many cases going into small business. This is the whole point of the Investing in Our Schools program: it gives school communities and our broader community the opportunity to set their own infrastructure priorities, without being constrained by the bureaucracy, the state education departments. This program allows for investment of up to $150,000 in each school, on top of its normal funding.

The Commonwealth has had to do this because the state Labor governments are just not putting sufficient money into school infrastructure. For example, in my own electorate, Gosnells Primary School and High Wycombe Primary School have been begging the state for some time now to allocate resources to fix up the toilets—an essential service that needs to be there for hygiene and the normal process of human life. And yet the state government is doing nothing about it. As has so often been the case, the Howard government has been identifying these needs at schools, seeking the support of the community and providing funding at the local level, because the state governments just are not doing their job.

The member for Brisbane had the audacity to talk about dirty deals being done with respect to these funding arrangements and somehow implied that Labor held electorates have been disadvantaged. There has been similar criticism from the member for Jagajaga. That is an absolute joke. This funding program is the most open and transparent program. It is available to all schools across Australia. It is effective and cost-effective; it is the best bang for your buck. These grants are assessed by fully independent panels and the Australian government has accepted the panels’ recommendations in full. Members opposite are trying to give a helping hand to their state counterparts—and they certainly need it—who are very disappointed that they cannot get their hands on this money as it goes through the processes. This money goes straight to the schools, with no state ministers to muck around with it or funnel it into their pet projects. Schools are getting the full bang for their buck out of these programs.

How can this funding be a dirty deal? In my electorate, High Wycombe Primary School has received funding to the tune of $72,253. This school happens to be—as I said before—in the state electorate held by the Western Australian Treasurer and Deputy Premier, Eric Ripper, who has just announced this week a record half-year surplus of over $1 billion, but who cannot provide funding for schools in his own electorate. In the latest round of funding from this program to my electorate, Gosnells High School, which I mentioned before, has received $150,000. Gosnells Primary School received $69,459; Gooseberry Hill Primary School received $146,960; Caversham Primary School received $150,000; Helena Valley Primary School received $99,500; Huntingdale Primary School received $147,000; South Thornlie Primary School received $63,000; and Woodbridge Primary School received $107,690. That is a new school in the electorate in the state seat of Midland. We have a senior cabinet member of the state government who is not providing the sorts of resources to these schools that should be provided. They are relying on the Commonwealth to provide this support. It is an abrogation of their responsibility to the community, to the school children across Australia and to Western Australia particularly.

Yule Brook College in Maddington received $72,000. That is an exceptional primary school, and is again in a safe Labor seat. Every single one of these schools, as I have mentioned, is in safe state Labor seats. Only two schools are in Liberal held electorates. That is the sort of situation that the member for Jagajaga and the member for Brisbane are being critical of. They are critical because we are supporting Labor constituencies and their schools in state Labor seats, ensuring that we pick up what the state government have not picked up.

The only dirty deals around here are the ones done between the trade unions and the Labor Party. We again notice the absence from the House of the member for Hotham and the member for Corio, members of this House who have to pick up on these dirty deals to ensure that they have the opportunity to take up their seats on the opposition benches in the future. Labor is doing deals to dump sitting members and replace them with union hacks. That is not surprising, really. Ask the member for Hotham and ask the member for Maribyrnong and they will tell you what it is like—

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to draw the member back to the question before the chair.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The material that he is using is relevant.

Stuart Henry (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am in the process of concluding my remarks. It is important to draw attention to these issues. Members opposite want to be critical and talk about dirty deals. The only dirty deals that are done in this House are done on that side of the parliament between sitting members and their union mates.

This bill will do a lot to help schools all around Australia, but particularly schools in Hasluck like Corridors College, which I mentioned in my opening remarks earlier. The bill will provide better opportunities and more choices to young people, particularly those kids who might otherwise fall by the wayside. I commend the bill to the House.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought it was important that I made some contribution to the debate on the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill 2006. On 9 November I asked the then minister for education a question about the particular funding that has been subject to much discussion during the debate on this bill. I asked the then minister for education to provide a breakdown to me of each electorate across Australia that received funding for government and non-government schools. The breakdown allowed the shadow minister and other members of the opposition to clearly see that there has been a distortion in funding towards and in favour of government electorates when compared with opposition electorates. This is a serious charge.

We are asserting that the government would manipulate the funding in order to provide more money for constituents in government held electorates as opposed to opposition held electorates. This comes off the back of the ‘regional rorts’ affair that was raging last year, quite rightly pointing to government misbehaviour and levels of corruption that occurred during the course of the funding applications to that department. I think the Labor Party made it very clear and confirmed the view that was held by the public that the government had indeed pork-barrelled Commonwealth money to provide electoral favour in the last election.

Whilst I am happy to concede that there has been money allocated to all constituents that made applications—and I am also happy to concede that there are some significant sums of money going to opposition held electorates—it is important to note that, when you look at the average amount of money under this program going to government seats compared to opposition seats, the government seats fare considerably better. It seems that the money allocated to coalition seats was almost double that for Labor and Independent seats. Of course, you have to take into account the fact that there are more coalition seats but, even once you factor that in, when comparing opposition to coalition seats it is clear that more funds have been provided to the government held seats. That is an issue that the shadow minister for education and Deputy Leader of the Opposition quite rightly raised in her contribution to this debate. It is a very important matter of ensuring that the government is accountable and that it makes its decisions on Commonwealth funding allocation based on merit and on requirements of school children across the country—not on the electoral needs of a political party that wants to sustain itself in government with spin and pork-barrelling. That is why it is important for me to make a contribution to this debate.

I also would like to talk about my electorate of Gorton. We were indeed successful in the applications made, but there were some question marks over another type of grant application. I have been in contact with the minister’s office and have asked the department why a decision was made not to provide a particular grant to Caroline Springs College regarding out of school hours care. It seems to me that the grounds for one of their applications were very strong indeed. The format of the application and the reasons for seeking the grant were stronger than other applications I have witnessed and, I am sure, far stronger than many other applications from outside of my electorate that were forthcoming as a result of this program.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you contact the minister?

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, to answer the question of the member opposite, we contacted the then minister’s office. I hope the new Minister for Education, Science and Training will attend to that matter, if it had not already been determined by the previous minister. Caroline Springs College is a wonderful school. It is located in an area where there is not only a primary Catholic school, Christ the Priest Catholic Primary School, but also another independent school, Mowbray College. The amazing thing about those three schools is that they share resources and also land. There is a great harmony amongst the three schools in the way they look after children and ensure children from each of the schools work and play together.

I would hate to think that, in one of the fastest growing areas of Melbourne—and certainly one of the fastest growing areas of the electorate of Gorton—Caroline Springs College is neglected because of a bureaucratic decision not to allow a grant. On the face of it and after discussions I have had with the principal, Gabrielle Leigh, and other colleagues of hers at that school, I cannot see any reason for that grant not to be forthcoming. I hope, therefore, if that decision has not already been reversed, that the minister’s office and indeed the department review that decision. If that has already occurred—if the decision has been reversed and the funding has been provided to them—and I have not been informed, it has happened very recently and I would welcome it.

This is such an important area of the western suburbs of Melbourne and one of the fastest growing suburbs of Melbourne. It would be awful to send such a message to such an innovative school. It is a school that collaborates with two other schools—one a Catholic primary and the other an independent school—in a way which I think is a template for other areas where there are schools within the same location. It would be awful to think that the college would miss out. As a result of population growth in that area of Melbourne, Caroline Springs College has outgrown its first campus and the second campus is coming along very well. But, because of the exponential growth that is occurring in that area, resources have to catch up to the quickly increasing population growth and density. I think it is incumbent upon local, state and Commonwealth governments to be aware of the growth in that region and to ensure that funds are provided so that western suburbs children do not miss out.

I make that plea in this place via you, Mr Deputy Speaker Somlyay, to the minister. I hope the plea is heard and that the claim for the application to be reviewed will be attended to. Before Christmas, I gave a promise that I would do everything I could to ensure that the decision would be reversed. We did make contact with the department and the minister’s office, and we await their decision.

I will finish on the fact that the government has a charge to answer: when you look at the average amount of funding going to coalition seats compared with that going to Labor and Independent seats, you find that a higher level of funding is being provided to government seats. It is something that the government has to explain. There may be reasons that are yet to be uncovered by the shadow minister for education and others; but, until we are provided with them, we will assume and, as a result, conclude that the government is pork-barrelling certain areas—

Pat Farmer (Macarthur, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s completely untrue!

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The parliamentary secretary at the table wants to intervene. He does not want to get up on his feet.

Pat Farmer (Macarthur, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Farmer interjecting

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now he wants to shout, because I guess that is the nature of the parliamentary secretary. It may well be that the parliamentary secretary’s electorate has done very well. I have already suggested to him that I am aware of many applications in other areas that have been successful, but the fact remains that, on average, when you compare coalition seats with Labor and Independent seats, coalition seats have done better.

I invite the parliamentary secretary and the minister to provide a genuine reason at some point in time for that—a reason other than pork-barrelling and looking after their own interests instead of the interests of school children in this country. But, on the face of it, there is on average a disproportionate amount of funding going to those seats, and that has to be answered. I am sure that is of concern to many parents who send their children to primary and secondary schools in this country, because they would expect the government to spend money on schools based on the merit of an application and the needs of the children, not based on such motives as the electoral need of the government to sustain itself in government. That is yet to be answered. It has not been properly answered by anyone on the other side, and the quicker that is done the better off we will all be—but I will not hold my breath for an answer to that.

This is not the only program where money has been disproportionately spent on marginal government held seats in order for the government to maintain those seats. There is no doubt that the government looks after the marginal seats, not the marginalised. It has an obsession with looking after its own, and it is about time it turned its attention to the children of Australia and their schools.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The explanatory memorandum points out to us that the purpose of the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill 2006 is to amend the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004, which provides funding for Australian government programs and financial assistance to the states and territories for government and non-government schools for the 2005 to 2008 quadrennium.

I am passionate about education, and I have to say that I think Australia has been singularly fortunate that, during the last 10 years of the coalition government in office, we have had three very effective ministers for education. I refer, in particular, to Dr David Kemp, the former minister and now retired; the now Minister for Defence, the honourable member for Bradfield; and the new minister, the honourable member for Curtin, who was recently appointed to that post.

I think those who are parents are passionate about education. The children of Australia are our nation’s future, and I do not believe that this issue ought to be politicised. The honourable member for Gorton spoke at some length, accusing the government of pork-barrelling—spending excessive amounts of money in government electorates, particularly marginal government electorates—and he somehow seemed to suggest that we were putting the interests of government members ahead of the interests of the children of Australia.

I do not think he made the charge out successfully at all. In fact, he highlighted how the system is working when he referred to the Caroline Springs school in his electorate. He said that that school put in what he thought was a good application and, inexplicably, it was rejected. He also pointed out that he has been to see the former minister and that he is hoping that the new minister will reverse that decision upon the representations being made by him. From the words that he uttered, he seemed to be enormously optimistic that that decision was about to be reversed. If he is correct and the application is worthy—I certainly hope that the honourable member is correct—he is saying that this system is open and transparent and that it works.

Ministers for education act on the basis of recommendations from bureaucrats. Bureaucrats consider applications, and ministers make final decisions in most cases. In some cases, the decisions might be made by those who are not elected. But, ultimately, the buck stops at the minister’s desk. My experience of ministers for education and, indeed, of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training, who is seated at the table, is that, if you have a good case and you see the minister, regardless of the political party from which you emanate, you will get a hearing.

It seems that, from what the honourable member for Gorton told the House only a couple of minutes ago, he has had a good hearing. He has been there to re-argue the case for the Caroline Springs school. He thought that maybe the former minister had signed off on a reversal of the decision. He said that, if the former minister has not, he is optimistic that the now minister will do that. He said that he has not been notified of a decision—that is possible, because it sometimes takes a while for these things to flow through. What he is really saying is that we do have a system that works. Not everyone is always going to be happy with every decision made by the government. We have finite funds. The funds have to be spread equitably.

I think it is quite wrong to suggest that the government would favour schools within government electorates, because that simply walks away from the reality that parents resident in one federal electorate do not necessarily send their children to schools within that electorate. You find that parents vote with their feet. There are good government and non-government schools, and in many cases you will find that those parents will not look at federal electorate boundaries when deciding where to send their kids to school. Sometimes you will find that people who live in a Liberal or National Party electorate will send their children to school in a Labor electorate, and it is therefore in my view inconceivable that the government would possibly make decisions on the basis of the electoral boundaries within which a particular school is situated.

I have been reminded that the current Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs was also the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, and she was a very fine occupant of that office as well. I am pleased to speak on this bill. I am very proud of what we have achieved in the area of education over the last 10 years. I am very proud of the government and non-government schools we have in the area I represent—and it is of course contiguous with the area that you represent, Mr Deputy Speaker Somlyay. We have had very good quality government and non-government schools during the period that we have been in office. I am proud that millions and millions of dollars have been poured into the Sunshine Coast and hinterland areas as far as schools are concerned. That indicates to me, as a parent and as an elected representative, that this government is continuing to deliver for the students of this area. In fact, I see the deputy serjeant here and I know that her brother is a very fine teacher at Caloundra State High School. That is a very good government high school within my electorate which has received assistance from this government over the years.

The bill before the House will further strengthen the government’s support of all schools in that it provides for the automatic allocation of general recurrent funding for those non-government schools that are devoted to meeting the needs of students with emotional difficulties—those facing social and behavioural challenges—who are at risk of dropping out of the normal schooling system. I have always been one to support the notion of giving students every possible opportunity to achieve all that they can on the educational front. That is a wonderful investment in an even better Australia as the years go on. The provisions in this bill do that for students facing additional challenges and back up the support that has already been given by the Australian government to students in my electorate. Parents of struggling students have been offered tutorial vouchers that are designed to fund extra tutorial support for students outside school hours to enable them to overcome particular learning hurdles and improve their educational outcomes.

The Investing in Our Schools program has been widely welcomed in my electorate. So much money is poured into schools in my electorate it is probably impossible in a 20-minute speech to quote every last dollar that has been granted by the government to the parents and students of the electorate of Fisher. For example, just last September students and staff at seven schools shared in grants totalling $210,000. The funding program is designed to deliver much needed projects to school communities. This scheme is especially significant because it will fund projects that have been identified by the school communities themselves as being critical to their schools. In September funds were allocated to Buddina State School, which received $34,010 to pay for extensions to the computer lab; Currimundi Special School, $42,453 for the installation of airconditioning; Eudlo State School, $26,411 for extensions to the school tuckshop; Golden Beach State School, $11,250 to help with planning for a multipurpose area; Montville State School, $32,200 for an extension of covered walkways—and I can see you smiling, Mr Deputy Speaker Somlyay, because while Montville State School is technically within my electorate I suspect that most of the students there reside in yours; Mooloolah State School, $42,372 for outdoor shaded sports, play and learning activity area; and Talara Primary College, $21,957 for improvements to shade structures and sporting infrastructure.

Projects such as these, although often desperately needed by the schools, never seem to make their way onto the state government priority lists, and school communities must often face the long and arduous task of raising the necessary funding themselves. The Australian government recognises the importance of providing schools with facilities that will enhance the education and wellbeing of students. The Investing in Our Schools program builds on the $1.5 thousand million already allocated by the Australian government for school capital projects over the next four years. In November, numerous schools were assisted through the capital grants program for schools.

Four schools shared in over $1 million in funds: Pacific Lutheran College, which received $450,000 to construct six general learning areas, an administration area, a computer laboratory, store rooms, student and staff amenities and other items; the new Caloundra City School, situated in Pelican Waters, to construct a chemistry laboratory, a physics laboratory, general learning areas, a hydroponics room, chemical storage room, home economics room, preparation kitchen, staff room and other items; the Sunshine Coast Grammar School, $60,000 for construction of four general learning areas, a computer lab and staff room, two store rooms, staff amenities and other items; the Sunshine Coast Grammar School, again with the construction of two primary general learning areas, a teacher’s office and other items; and Caloundra Christian College, $78,100 for the refurbishment of two science laboratories and a science preparation room, the conversion of an under cover area to a primary general learning area and an extension to a science laboratory.

I was pleased to announce further grants of over $370,000 for much needed projects at the Caloundra Christian College, for construction of a multipurpose covered area, and Sunshine Coast Grammar School. In November, the government announced 564 extra places in my electorate for before school, after school and vacation care. This was the second highest allocation in Australia behind the allocation for the electorate of Groom. Assistance was also extended to help through programs such as the Healthy School Communities program. This included grants of up to $1,500 to encourage schools to implement systems that encourage healthy eating.

Schemes in my electorate include the funding of Ananda Marga River School in Maleny to support the implementation of a healthy school canteen policy by purchasing equipment for the production and safe storage of healthy foods. The funds for Caloundra State School will provide training for students and volunteers in food safety and the principles of good nutrition. Government funding for Caloundra Christian College will be used to support the implementation of a healthy school canteen policy by purchasing equipment for the production and safe storage of healthy foods and to develop and implement a breakfast program for students, parents and community members. The grant for Caloundra City School will help develop and implement a breakfast program for students, parents and community members and will be used to purchase fresh fruit and vegetables for health snacks during activities after school hours. Chancellor State College will be allocated funds to purchase fresh fruit and vegetables for healthy snacks during activities after school hours.

The funds for Currimundi Special School will be used to buy fresh fruit and vegetables for healthy snacks during school hours so students can run a juice bar three times a week. The funds for Glenview State School will support the implementation of a healthy school canteen policy by purchasing equipment for the production and safe storage of healthy foods and to develop and maintain a vegetable garden which will be used to reinforce the healthy eating curriculum. The grant for Kawana Waters State High School will help to host a healthy dinner for students, parents and community members and demonstrate how to prepare healthy food alternatives, and the funds for Pacific Lutheran College will be used to encourage healthy-eating resources for curriculum based activities.

These allocations of funds reflect the ongoing importance that the government places on students, learning outcomes and school environments. The Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill 2006 will further improve the situation and provide further student support and further support to the families of Australia. I have to say—and I probably should not admit this in the House—that I have a reasonably high opinion of the honourable member for Jagajaga, perhaps more than some colleagues have, but I am disappointed that the honourable member sees fit to move two fairly spurious amendments. The member ought to take note of the facts and perhaps ought to be a bit more enthusiastic in her support for the very many education initiatives of this government. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take this opportunity to thank all members of the House who took part in this debate. I particularly want to thank the members of the coalition who provided most thoughtful and considered contributions: the members for Canning, Bass, Ryan, Riverina, Cowper, Hasluck and Fisher.

The Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill 2006 contains measures that will provide increased Australian government funding to meet the immediate needs of school communities throughout the nation. Under our government, all Australian schools have been funded at record levels. Through increased financial assistance to schools, particularly schools serving the neediest communities, the government seeks to improve the outcomes from schools and thus provide a brighter future for all Australian students.

This bill contains measures that will enable more funding in 2006 to directly benefit schools and students in response to the actual needs of schools. Over $186 million for small scale infrastructure projects in state government schools is being brought forward from 2008 to 2006. To meet the overwhelming response to the Investing in Our Schools program, under the program the government is providing $700 million to deliver small scale projects which will improve and enhance the infrastructure of state government schools, in accordance with priorities identified by the school communities.

This program has proved enormously popular. I am delighted that the parliamentary secretary, the Hon. Pat Farmer, is in the House for he has been a great champion of this program and has assisted enormously in its delivery. More than 8,300 funding requests were received in 2005 from state government schools. These consisted of over 4,800 applications received in round 1 for grants of up to $50,000 and over 3,500 applications in round 2 for grants of up to $150,000.

I am delighted to report to the House that schools in every single federal electorate across Australia have been allocated funding through this program. I reject completely the baseless—and I might say vindictive—claim by the Labor Party that there is any bias or rorting of this program or that funds are being directed to coalition seats. That is outrageous.

Independent state based assessment advisory panels, consisting of school principals and parents, were established to assess applications. They were assisted by guidelines provided by the Department of Education, Science and Training. Neither the Australian government nor the state government have a vote. The member for Jagajaga ought to note that these panels were not looking at electorate boundaries when they put forward their assessments; they made their assessments solely on schools’ needs. This shameless Labor attack is in fact directed at the people on these independent school and parent panels.

If there are more schools in one electorate then there is more likelihood that more schools will apply for funding; therefore, more funding might be applied to schools in that electorate. This is not rocket science. It is a fact—one that we rejoice in on this side of the House—that the coalition holds more seats than the opposition. If there are more schools in coalition held electorates and there are more coalition held seats, of course the figures are obvious. So the claims are totally baseless. Take Queensland, for example, where 25 per cent of funding has gone to ALP seats. That is in line with the number of seats that they hold. It is the same in Tasmania where ALP-held seats received more than 53 per cent of the funding. Let me take the Northern Territory—67 per cent of funding in the Northern Territory went to the ALP held seat. The member for Jagajaga has led this charge for Labor. Let us look at her electorate of Jagajaga, which was allocated over $880,000 through the program to help schools in her community.

To put this in perspective, my electorate was allocated $315,000. I have no complaint, but that was almost one-third of the amount that schools were allocated in Jagajaga. I think it is a sad reflection on the member for Jagajaga. She complains about the program, yet her electorate has been allocated almost three times the amount of funding for schools in my electorate—and I think that says it all. I would also draw to her attention the fact that her electorate has 49 schools and mine has 58. While the member for Jagajaga complains, it is interesting to note that many of her colleagues are deathly quiet. I do not hear the member for Canberra, for example, condemning the $900,000 allocated in her electorate to local schools. I do not hear the member for Bendigo complaining about the $1 million allocated for schools in his electorate.

Let us not forget that this program came into being after urgent need was identified in the state school sector due to the chronic neglect of state government schools by state and territory governments. Already more than $73 million has been paid to schools for much needed projects—basic infrastructure such as airconditioning, shade structures, computer equipment, library resources, classroom improvements and playground equipment. Funding is being brought forward from 2008 so that state government schools do not have to wait for funding for much needed infrastructure projects. These are projects which just do not get priority from the state governments. Let me use a school in Jagajaga as an example. It received funding to repair an oval that is more than 30 years old. Due to the financial restraints imposed by the state Labor government in Victoria, the oval has received minimal maintenance. I have been advised that the surface is rock-hard and uneven, resulting in students sustaining frequent injuries when playing ball games or participating in athletic activities. Also, there are no goalposts on the oval for children to play football and soccer—which is unusual for a school in Victoria. This is in the electorate of the member for Jagajaga. Does the state government in Victoria just not care?

When was the last time the member for Jagajaga wrote to her state Labor counterparts on behalf of schools in her electorate calling on them to properly fund schools? In many cases schools have been seeking funding year after year but have been knocked back by state governments. One school advised me about requesting funding from its state government for a decade without success—and the Labor members talk about a delay in the delivery of this program. We are talking about schools that state Labor governments have kept waiting for years for funding. That is why the Investing in Our Schools program is so important: it responds to the needs of school communities now; it does not make them wait 10, 20 or 30 years. Having received reports like these from principals and parents, I am staggered by the negativity and the lack of support for this program by Labor, but particularly by the criticism from the member for Jagajaga.

She was rather keen in her speech to offer me some advice. I suggest that she spend less time sitting in her Parliament House suite and more time visiting local schools and talking to students, parents and teachers to hear how valuable this program is to them. I suggest the member for Jagajaga urge her state counterparts to meet their responsibilities for funding state government schools properly. This program is unique: it is giving parents and teachers the opportunity to tell the Australian government directly the needs of their schools. It is time for Labor to stop criticising the hardworking parents and principals in these groups who have been involved at all stages of the development and implementation of the Investing in Our Schools program and whose only aim is to provide the best possible learning environment for their students.

The government supports the provision of funding for schools on a needs basis, and this principle underpins the Australian government funding for schools. It has always been the intention of the Australian government to provide maximum general recurrent funding to special schools. Under the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004, special schools are funded at the maximum recurrent grant rate. A school is classified as a special school if it is recognised by the state or territory education minister as a special school and provides a special education program. In some states this recognition does not extend to schools that primarily cater for students with social, emotional or behavioural difficulties or who are at risk of leaving mainstream schooling. The amendments to the act correct this anomaly and fulfil the intention under the SES funding arrangements of providing maximum general recurrent funding to this very important class of non-government schools.

The pilot Tutorial Voucher Initiative and other responses to improve the literacy levels of Australian students are yet another example of this government responding to the abject failure of state governments to adequately resource state government schools or respond to the learning needs of their students. The Tutorial Voucher Initiative has successfully assisted some 6,200 students nationally during 2005. This valuable assistance was provided through $700 worth of one-to-one tuition in reading. Of these students, 5,443 completed a full course of tuition. There was a high level of community interest in the pilot. The department’s national hotlines have received over 10,000 calls about the pilot since it was announced in 2004 and the program has been very well received by those who participated. The findings from the independent evaluation already show that 87.7 per cent of parents who responded to the parent/care giver survey were satisfied or very satisfied with the pilot overall. Thirty-eight per cent of participating parents nationwide responded to the survey and over 80 per cent of those felt their child had improved in reading and enjoyed reading. Eighty-five per cent of responding parents felt their child had increased in confidence in reading as a result of the tuition. Sixty-nine per cent of responding tutors felt most or all of the students they tutored had improved in reading and most students appear to have improved between their pre- and post-tuition assessments.

All state and territory education ministers agreed at the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs in May 2005 that they would directly contact parents with eligible students or, where this was not possible, the school principals would make that contact. In states where parents were contacted in a timely way by the state education authorities, the take-up was high. In New South Wales, where parents were contacted directly, the take-up was 70 per cent of eligible students. In contrast, 12 per cent of eligible students in Victoria and 18 per cent in Queensland registered. Why would that be? Children in Victoria and Queensland were disadvantaged by the failure of the Victorian and Queensland governments to do what they agreed. In Victoria letters were sent to parents after the closing date for the pilot. In Queensland they did not even bother to send letters.

The Australian government intends that children in those states who failed to get what they had agreed to give them and who were unable to get help with their reading under the pilot Tutorial Voucher Initiative in 2005 will be able to do so. Many eligible parents and their children missed out on getting any reading assistance not through any fault of theirs but due to the inaction of state governments. So, as a matter of good faith, the government is making available funding this year to students who missed out on the valuable assistance. The bill will ensure that funding from the pilot program will be available in 2006 to provide assistance for students who most need extra support.

This bill responds to the specific needs of schools and school communities. The government will continue to identify and respond to community aspirations for Australian schools to ensure that our students are well prepared to participate fully in Australian society and contribute effectively within an international context. I commend this bill to the House.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Ms Macklin’s amendment) stand part of the question.