Peter Andren (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Given that the original guidelines to the Investing in Our Schools Program stated:

A school community may be funded up to a maximum of $150,000 over the 2005-08 quadrennium ...

and given that schools, particularly small schools in my electorate, have allocated considerable time and resources over three years to prioritise and plan linked projects based on the $150,000 funding cap, what will the minister do to ensure such projects, some with discrete components already completed, are not wasted and that the reasonable funding expectations of such schools are met, given the reduction to $100,000 in the amounts schools can now seek?

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

I thank the member for his question. The Investing in Our Schools Program was introduced to meet the failure of state governments to properly invest in their schools. The original commitment was $1 billion. There are 10,000 schools in Australia. The program was competitive and panels were set up in each state to assess the applications because we anticipated that there would be more applications than there was funding available, and that certainly has been the case. Over 18,000 applications were received from schools across Australia. The original guidelines made it clear that schools could apply for up to $150,000. That is not a guarantee.

Peter Andren (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Andren interjecting

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

The member agrees with me: that is not a guarantee. It is a competitive process. Applications were made to the panels, who then made recommendations based on need. Due to the overwhelming number of applications received, particularly from state government schools, where the most chronic neglect has been identified, a bill was passed through this parliament, and members voted on it, to bring forward the funding to 2006 and 2007 so that we could meet the enormous demand, particularly from state government schools. The House voted on that and that legislation passed.

The Australian government has met its election commitment to expend $1 billion on state government and non-government school infrastructure. In addition, the Prime Minister announced a further $181 million to exceed that election promise, so that schools that had not applied or had only received a small amount of funding could apply again in a fourth round.

This is one of the most successful programs that the Australian government have introduced. The reason for its success is that we have met the failures of state governments to properly fund their schools. It is very interesting to note that all of a sudden the New South Wales Labor government has come up with a plan to fund toilet blocks in their schools. In the 21st century, in a First World country, the New South Wales Labor government thinks that an election promise ought to fund toilet blocks. We believe on this side of the House that wherever a child goes to school, they should be in a high-quality environment, and that is why we have exceeded the election commitment of $1 billion: it is now an almost $1.2 billion program.