Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

May I suggest that it might suit the Main Committee to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order shown in the schedule which has been circulated to honourable members. I also take the opportunity to indicate to the Main Committee that the proposed order for consideration of portfolios estimates has been discussed with the opposition and non-government members and there has been no objection to what is proposed.

The schedule read as follows—

Proposed order of consideration of Portfolios - Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-10

Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio

Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government Portfolio

Health and Ageing Portfolio

Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio

The Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts Portfolio

Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Portfolio

Human Services Portfolio

Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Portfolio

Defence Portfolio

Resources, Energy and Tourism Portfolio

Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio

Attorney General’s Portfolio

Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Portfolio

Finance and Deregulation Portfolio

Treasury Portfolio

Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio

Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it the wish of the Main Committee to consider the items of the proposed expenditure in the order suggested by the minister? There being no objection it is so ordered.

Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, 7,601,757,000

The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad that the Minister for Education has come into the Main Committee to discuss the consideration in detail for education as often a parliamentary secretary or junior minister would be sent, and that is to her great credit. I have a few questions that I would like to put to the minister which she can either answer today or be prepared to take on notice and return to the House to answer at some point. They largely relate to the common youth allowance changes and also to the Education Investment Fund changes and then my colleagues, the members for Boothby, Stirling and Indi, will also fill the time allocated for education as there are a number of other issues within this portfolio which they handle.

My question about the common youth allowance changes are as follows. The DEEWR fact sheets identify that 30,700 students are likely to miss out on youth allowance due to the tightening of the workforce participation criteria. I would like the minister to provide detail, if that is possible, on the composition of these 30,700 students. How many will come from rural and regional areas? How many will be ineligible because they come from farming backgrounds where the parental asset, the family farm, excludes them from receiving youth allowance irrespective of their parental income? How many will be ineligible because they come from small business families where the parental asset, the small business, excludes them from receiving youth allowance irrespective of parental income? I would also ask the minister if she is aware that, according to the ABARE farm survey results released in April 2009, the equity at 30 June 2008 of the average broadacre farm in Australia is $3½ million dollars and that the average farm cash income from the same farm was $62,400. Given that by these figures the average farm in Australia is well above the level for the personal assets test—approximately $2.2 million this year—can the minister confirm that as a result of the government’s reforms the child of an average farming couple in Australia is entitled to receive no assistance to pursue their higher education dreams unless they first work full-time for 18 months even though their parents’ income would have been well within the range that would qualify them to receive youth allowance were their parents receiving the same income from a salaried job in the city where the student would not even need to leave home to study. Is the minister able to release whatever analysis the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations has done into the specific challenges facing students from rural and regional Australia who must leave their family home in order to access higher education?

I also ask: how many representations has the minister’s office and the department received from members of the Australian public in relation to the amendments to youth allowance by email, by letter, by phone call or by personal visit? Will the minister consider making transitional arrangements that would allow those students who have taken a gap year in 2009 on advice from Centrelink officials and others at their schools in order to gain independent youth allowance in 2010 to be able to do so and therefore ensure that the government is not imposing effectively retrospective legislation on Australian students? They are my questions in relation to the common youth allowance. I am happy to let you answer those now or continue.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please continue.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the Education Investment Fund, $6.2 billion was assigned in the 2007-08 budget for a new Higher Education Endowment Fund, the HEEF, to provide an ongoing revenue source to pay for university infrastructure into the 21st century—an initiative that Peter Costello was closely involved with. Last year the Rudd government added $2.5 billion from the last Costello surplus and renamed it the Education Investment Fund.

The minister has claimed to deliver a $5.7 billion package in this budget for universities, research and higher education generally, but I ask the minister: isn’t it true that to create this $5.7 billion figure the government has had to include $934 million of the EIF, the Education Investment Fund, round 2 projects; $901 million of EIF funding for what the government has called its Super Science Initiative; $750 million of undefined EIF future rounds; and $400 million taken from EIF funds for the Clean Energy Initiative? Isn’t it therefore the case that $3 billion of the government’s $5.7 billion higher education package was in fact appropriated in Peter Costello’s 2007-08 budget? How much of the $750 million earmarked for EIF future rounds over the next three years will be spent on university infrastructure, how much will be spent on vocational education and training infrastructure, and how much will be diverted to programs unrelated to further education altogether?

I could speak at length about what I regard as the manifest failures of the government in respect of education, but I know my colleagues with responsibility for industrial relations, apprenticeships and training, and the member for Indi, who has responsibility for child care, have other questions, so I will leave it at that. I look forward to the minister’s response. (Time expired)

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow minister for his questions. It would be churlish of him indeed to try to criticise this government’s record on education given the historically large new investments that are flowing into education as a result of this government’s education revolution and particularly the expenditures in this budget. I understand that he cringes when he reflects on the parlous state that education was left in by the former government and that he finds it difficult to make any substantive or real criticisms of the government’s programs.

I will come directly to the student financing questions that he raised. I want to give to the shadow minister an important statistic that I think he may not be aware of: under the previous government in the period 2002-07 regional participation rates in higher education fell. Under a Liberal government in which National Party members served in significant roles—at the most significant point as Deputy Prime Minister—a government that would have said it was doing things for rural and regional Australia, regional participation rates in higher education fell from 18.715 per cent to 18.08 per cent. That is against a population share of 25.4 per cent of the population.

So, even at the higher point, regional people were significantly underrepresented in higher education, and that problem was exacerbated during the life of the former Liberal-National Party government. And the bad news does not end there, because remote participation rates fell over the same period, from 1.27 per cent to 1.12 per cent. That was against a population share of 2.5 per cent, so already significantly below population share and falling under the Liberal government. In those circumstances obviously this government is very determined to make a difference for rural and regional education. That is why we have moved to the student financing package that is part of the budget papers. In very much expanding the number of families that will get benefits and in very much increasing the family income test for those families, this package will benefit rural and regional students. To give just a flavour of that, the parental income cut-off for two students 18 years of age or more and living away from home is $139,388. That is a significant statistic for regional families who are very likely to have to have their students move away from home. We have taken the income test to that point from $79,117 under the old system. So for rural and regional Australians, who tend on average to earn less than their city counterparts, such a huge extension in the family income test and the additional numbers of students that will benefit is very good news indeed.

On the question of farm assets, can I advise the shadow minister that the way the assets test works for families in those circumstances is that it takes account of current market values and it is net of business farm related debt, so obviously we are talking about a calculation that goes to the equity, if I can use that terminology. The valuation disregards the principal family home and up to two hectares of surrounding land. The limit currently set on that valuation is $571,500 and it is indexed. However, for business assets, including farm assets, a 75 per cent discount is applied to this assets test. This means that youth allowance and Abstudy are obtainable for young people in small business and farmer families who have assets to the value of $2.286 million. That is the way the assets test works, and I would direct the shadow minister’s attention to each element of that so that he can accurately transmit that message. On the question of—(Time expired)

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a couple more questions. The Building the Education Revolution is not part of my responsibilities but I would be interested to hear the Deputy Prime Minister’s response as to what measure she has put in place or is going to put in place to deal with a number of issues that are arising in the so-called Building the Education Revolution. There are two which appear to be causing the most concern because they involve the use of Commonwealth taxpayers’ money in a wasteful and poor fashion. One is skimming by state governments: the removal of state government spending on school infrastructure in what they see as a bonanza of Commonwealth taxpayers’ money therefore giving them the capacity to remove their own funding. I know that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have said they will not tolerate skimming by state governments, but even in my own state of South Australia we saw in the budget handed down about 10 days ago that the state government reduced their spending on state infrastructure in schools by 12 per cent. In most years you would expect a state government to be increasing their spending on school infrastructure, not decreasing it, so 12 per cent is a very dramatic decline in state government commitment to their schools, which of course they are responsible for. I am sure that pattern in South Australia is being repeated around Australia. In fact, there has been anecdotal evidence of that in Victoria in particular and it would be surprising if the hopeless and rancid New South Wales state government was not attempting to do similar things. So skimming is a big issue in terms of the Building the Education Revolution.

Another great concern to people is profiteering by private enterprise. There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence that tenders and bids on school infrastructure are being inflated by up to 30 per cent because bureaucrats are telling builders and business generally that they have to get this money spent and out the door as quickly as possible. We have already had examples in the parliament, such Cleve Area School, of where profiteering appears to be occurring. I am sure that was not the intention of the Building the Education Revolution plan. I would hope that the minister would not, through vanity, refuse to accept that there is a failure in the delivery of these projects on the ground. I hope that she will in fact take the concerns raised by the opposition and others seriously and to heart. I hope she will adopt the call of the opposition to let the Auditor-General do a proper referral of the delivery of the Building the Education Revolution so that taxpayers’ money is properly spent and accounted for.

There is also the issue of targeting. There are schools that already have very substantial infrastructure, have everything that a school could really want for its pupils, but are being given $3 million grants. Meanwhile, there are other schools where the grants are much smaller but the needs are much greater. That is of great concern as well. No-one is suggesting that schools, especially non-government schools, should suddenly be discriminated against because they already have excellent infrastructure. A properly targeted $14.7 billion program would take into account what schools already have and would ensure that those schools in areas of low-socioeconomic background in particular are properly provided for.

There is also the issue of the provision of unwanted infrastructure. There is anecdotal evidence on the Education for Australia website, educationforaustralia.com.au, which I have begun, of many schools that already have the infrastructure that the state department and the federal government are insisting that they build. There are examples of schools that already have gymnasiums that have been told they have to have a gymnasium. There are schools that have perfectly adequate school infrastructure today in terms of classrooms and that want those classrooms to be air-conditioned but are being told only if they knock those buildings down and build new buildings will they be able to include air-conditioning.

Finally, just to clear up one matter that the Deputy Prime Minister seemed to misunderstand today: when I was talking about Hastings Public School, I was not confused between New South Wales and Victoria. I was talking about the Hastings Public School in northern New South Wales. The evidence that she needs to perhaps go back to is from 2003, when they were provided with $40,000 for a covered outdoor learning area. My question was entirely precise. They were provided with $40,000 in 2003 for a covered outdoor learning area. They are now being provided with $400,000 for a covered outdoor learning area. That, in anyone’s language, is a very large inflation rate. We will continue to ask questions because we are standing up for the Australian taxpayer. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will be big enough, woman enough, to accept that not everything she is doing is working and she needs to take another look at it.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will address the comments in reverse order. On Building the Education Revolution, you heard it here first: a historic offer. On the issue of targeting, if the shadow minister would forward to me a list of the schools that he believes have adequate infrastructure and should miss out—the schools that he thinks should not benefit under the program—then I will publish that list for community discussion and input. I will wait to get that very quickly from the shadow minister, who says he is concerned about targeting. If he wants to give me the list of the 10, 20, 50 or 100 schools he says have everything they need and should miss out on the Building the Education Revolution program, I will undertake to publish that through all mechanisms available to the government for community debate. I look forward to the receipt of that as soon as he can get it to me. I would be happy to engage in publication of that as early as tomorrow morning.

On the various claims the opposition has made about Building the Education Revolution, the problem here for the shadow minister is that when we have got to matters of detail about his claims they simply have not stood up. His claims about the Cleve Area School did not stand up. Regarding his claims about the Hastings Public School today, it is not very helpful to just talk about covered outdoor learning areas and compare one cost to another and then allege profiteering. You have obviously got to see what is in the covered outdoor learning area. I know that the shadow minister had been excluded from question time, as he frequently is for poor conduct, by the time I added to an answer. What he may not appreciate about the Hastings Public School in New South Wales is that the covered outdoor learning area is a significant building with a solid roof. It also includes an amphitheatre, seating, a sound system to facilitate school assemblies and performances, and science and work spaces. We are talking about a very substantial construction with very substantial facilities.

On the other claims that the shadow minister has made from time to time—that we are giving money to schools that close. He was yelling about Gepps Cross in question time today. Those claims have not stood up to public scrutiny and I answered that fully in question time today.

On the question of our arrangements with state governments, our arrangements are very clear—that is, states will pay a very substantial penalty in terms of the withdrawal of funds if they do not maintain effort in school capital expenditure. That is very clear. The government is very determined about that. It has been made clear through COAG. If the shadow minister wants an undertaking that any such action by any state government would be acted upon by this government then I can give him that undertaking—it most certainly would be.

In the Building the Education Revolution we are talking about a huge and unprecedented investment being rolled out unashamedly quickly to support jobs. I know the position of the opposition is that not one school should benefit and not one Australian should have a job from this $14.7 billion. I know that is their position and I know that, in a desperate attempt to justify that political position, from time to time, they throw up examples that they claim are flaws with the Building the Education Revolution program. I think everybody can see through the political desperation that drives these inaccurate claims.

I am going to be frank and I have been frank with the Australian people about this—when you are delivering a program of this size quickly to support jobs, from time to time there are going to be concerns, comments, criticisms and complaints. On each and every occasion that such concerns or comments or criticisms come to us we act on the basis of them. Of course, what we do not respond to are things said by the opposition which, after the simplest inquiry, turn out to be completely factually inaccurate.

On the question of the Education Investment Fund I understand that today is a day to be very generous about Peter Costello’s record in public life but, even being generous about Peter Costello’s record, I do not think that he can claim to have delivered—as this government has delivered—more than $5 billion in education infrastructure for higher education. One billion dollars of it came off budget and that was the Better Universities Renewal Fund.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member’s time has expired.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just finish with this one sentence and then we will move to other members—having allowed the shadow minister to do the same. With more than $5 billion invested in higher education infrastructure, vocational education and training infrastructure, I say this to the members opposite: it is very interesting to me that when called on to detail an education policy all they can do is criticise. I have not heard an education policy about early learning. I have not heard an education policy about school education. I have not heard an education policy about investing in important things like overcoming disadvantage in schools. I have not heard a substantive response to the Bradley reforms. This is the problem for the opposition—all they do is moan and complain but they are a policy-free zone. And the shadow minister for education more so than most.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to move on to another area within this portfolio that we have been very interested in, which is the area of award modernisation. When I have had the opportunity to ask the Deputy Prime Minister questions about this in the past, her answers have been wholly inaccurate. What I am hoping for is that we would have a chance to go through some of the problems that are associated with the award modernisation process and get some sensible responses to how she feels that business, in particular small business, will be able to address some of the cost increases that she is going to impose, particularly in certain sectors.

I would like to start by referring to a letter that I received recently from a supermarket owner just outside of my electorate in Shenton Park. He talks about the new general retail industry award. Under the award modernisation changes he will need to pay his casual workforce working on a Sunday $39.48 per hour. So that is almost $40 an hour he will need to pay his casual workforce on a Sunday. He is a small supermarket owner; clearly he cannot sustain that increase in wage costs. He says in his letter to us that he is going to have to shed his casual staff. He has asked us to try to do something about it through the legislative process. We will do so during the transitional bill in the other place, but I would be very interested to hear how the minister responds to his queries and what she thinks he can do to stop getting rid of those staff once his costs base has increased substantially.

I want to put another few questions on the record for the minister to respond to. Clearly when the minister made the award modernisation requests, she asked the Industrial Relations Commission to do what most would consider to be impossible—that is, to not disadvantage employees but also to not increase the cost base for employers. Clearly when you are dealing with these sorts of issues, you are dealing in a zero sum game. If you are taking away from one and adding to the other, it is literally impossible to implement that promise accurately. No matter what the commission does, there is really no chance that they could conform to the wishes and the request of the Deputy Prime Minister. I think that is clear to anyone who has any understanding about what this process entails.

And so I ask the minister: does she stand by her promise that no employee will be disadvantaged and that her award modernisation process will not increase the cost to business? I have asked her in this place before about advice that she has received about what the award modernisation is going to do to the labour market, and I would be interested in any advice she could share with House about what sort of information she has received from her department about how the award modernisation process is going to impact on the labour market. If she has not asked for such advice, then I would ask why she has not, as that would seem like a pretty basic aspect of due diligence when you are making such a major change. I would also like to know what she thinks will be the result of these massive increases in wage costs. If you are a small business owner and you are faced with a substantial increase in your wage costs, you could be operating on very tight profit margins. What does she expect the proprietor of these businesses to do?

I also ask that isn’t it the case that under the minister’s current arrangements the five-year phase-in period that she often talks about is only an option that is available to the commission to transition the new awards in? When we raise these issues about award modernisation, the minister will always respond by talking about the five-year phase-in period, which in itself is a reasonable option. The reality is of course that that is really up to the commission; the minister does not have any power to direct them to transition these awards in over that period. I also ask the minister to guarantee that the transition to modern awards will not cost one Australian job. Finally, I ask her why the jobs of workers in retail, aged care, horticulture and all the many other sectors that are going to be adversely impacted by this process are not as important to her as those in restaurants and cafes. The minister varied her award modernisation request to ask the commission to do a separate award arrangement for workers within that sector. Clearly that is an acknowledgement that this process has gone off the rails and when she was faced with the evidence that those changes were going to cost up to 8½ thousand jobs within that industry, she varied the request. Why won’t she do so for other sectors?

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a number of questions around the Building the Education Revolution funding that relate to schools in my electorate. Certain schools have been the subject of some discussion and media notoriety.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can’t you just ask her? You’ve been sitting next to her for a couple of minutes.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unlike the member for Stirling, the school communities in my electorate have warmly welcomed the funding. For example, on Friday I visited Brassall State School. Money for a multipurpose hall was repeatedly promised to the school by the previous coalition government. Well, the Rudd government is delivering $3 million to Brassall State School. I spoke at the assembly on Friday and they warmly welcomed the funding.

Three schools in my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland have been mentioned in the local and national media. The first is Bremer State High School, which is the biggest high school in my electorate. It is a great school. I sent my two daughters to Bremer State High School. I am proud to say my youngest daughter was dux last year and my eldest daughter was dux two years before that. It is a great school and I am very supportive of it.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Name them!

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My daughters? Jacqueline and Alexandra. They are both at the University of Queensland St Lucia campus and doing very well. Bremer State High School has over 1,200 students and, under round 2 of the National School Pride program, it received $200,000 for revegetation and a fitness track. Bremer has been relocated from its current site to an area beside the University of Queensland Ipswich campus, near the site of the Ipswich golf course. There has been some discussion and criticism by the opposition about Bremer State High School and the funding we are providing. I have spoken to the principal about the issue, and I would like to minister to comment on that.

The other school is Dinmore State School. Dinmore State School is effectively being amalgamated into Riverview State School. Bremer is being relocated as part of the State Schools of Tomorrow program in South-East Queensland, but Dinmore State School is a small school. A lot of money is being put into Riverview State School, but Dinmore was one of the successful schools in round 2 of the National School Pride program. For a classroom upgrade it received $75,000. I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to comment on where that money is going. Is it going to the existing school site or is it being rolled into the new school site, where Riverview State School is currently located? There is currently a lot of money being poured into that site by the state government.

The other school is Amberley State School. In the National School Pride program, Amberley State School received $125,000 for SMART Board data projectors for classrooms and, in round 2 of Primary Schools for the 21st Century, received $1 million for a new multipurpose hall and just over $1 million for an outside school hours care facility. The current site of Amberley State School, Deputy Prime Minister, has been taken over by the redevelopment of the RAAF base at Amberley. It is being relocated to the neighbouring suburb of Yamanto in Ipswich. We have given the state government $26.83 million to relocate because we are effectively purchasing the site to become part of the RAAF at Amberley. So the school is being relocated and a new school is being built at Yamanto in Ipswich. It is going to be a great school and I look forward to it being opened.

I seek the minister’s comments in relation to that because there has been some criticism by those opposite. In fact, Dr Bruce Flegg, the opposition spokesperson for education in Queensland, described funding for schools in Ipswich as ‘ludicrous’. So I am interested in the minister’s comments in relation to Bremer, Dinmore and Amberley state schools.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will respond to the questions that have been put to me. The response to the question asked by the shadow minister for employment and workplace relations is, I think, very clear. The government is engaged in a profound reform with award modernisation. I know that the Liberal Party does not really believe in safety nets. That was represented by its Work Choices legislation, where all aspects of the safety net could be stripped away apart from five minimum conditions which, when you held them up to the light, did not guarantee much at all. So I know that safety nets are not part of the Liberal Party’s ethos because it believes in statutory individual employment agreements that can strip the safety net away. But, even driven by that profound belief, in government the Liberal Party used to pretend that it was interested in the major reform of simplifying and modernising awards. It had a few goes at it and all of them were spectacular failures because reform is not an easy thing to do. It is an easy thing to give an interview about—and some members opposite do that from time to time—but it is actually not an easy thing to do.

Remarkably, this government, in pushing on with award modernisation with the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and working hard on it, is working through these issues and working through them very well. If the shadow minister was being fair, he would acknowledge that, overwhelmingly, the award modernisation process undertaken by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission is going very well indeed. They have made a large number of new modern awards. The level of stakeholder engagement in the making of them and the level of stakeholder acceptance of them once they are made is very high. The shadow minister might, therefore, want to congratulate the Australian Industrial Relations Commission for that work at some point.

The shadow minister points to some areas where concerns have been raised. The position of the government has been clear: we have been prepared to listen to concerns and to respond to them as necessary. I have varied the award modernisation request on more than one occasion. That is because I have responded to concerns from union stakeholders in relation to one variation and to concerns from employer stakeholders in relation to the restaurant and catering area that he raised. We are still in a process of engagement and dialogue about a series of other areas that he raised.

The shadow minister refuses to acknowledge that the commission not only has the task of making modern awards; they also have the task of making the five-year transitional arrangements. Many employer stakeholders are there at the commission, pressing to put a case about the nature of those five-year transitional arrangements and the commission is getting on with the job of making those transitional arrangements. We are allowing the independent umpire to do that work. I know that the Liberal Party does not believe in independent umpires in workplace relations, but we do. We are allowing the independent umpire to do that work. We will continue to keep it monitored and continue to have dialogue with employer stakeholders as necessary.

I know that from time to time the shadow minister says different things about award modernisation. On some occasions, he goes out and represents publicly that everything will change for employers on 1 January 2010. He knows that is not the case because there are the five-year transitional arrangements. Separately, on other occasions, he says that things should be frozen for the five years and that there should be a sudden, drop-dead date at the end of the five years. Both things represented by the opposition are ludicrous. It is not true to say that all things will change on 1 January 2010 with no transition or phase-in and it would be ludicrous to have a drop-dead date in five years time. I know workplace relations excites those opposite because they are there crying for Work Choices, but we will continue with this reform, which is in the interests of working people.

On the questions raised by the member for Blair, it is good to have a member here who knows the details of his local schools. Some opposition members may want to study his example, given some of the ludicrous claims that are made by opposition members about local schools. Can I assure the member for Blair that, despite publicity and opposition claims to the contrary, the $75,000 for Dinmore State School under the National School Pride Program is going to the continuing school, which is Riverview State School, so it will be there to benefit students. There have been publicity and claims by the opposition that were meant to give people the impression that revegetation and the construction of a fitness track at Bremer State High School are somehow being done at a school site that is closing. That publicity and those representations by the opposition are completely untrue. That is being constructed at the continuing school—the new school—and will be there for the benefit of students and I think that is terrific.

He has raised many issues associated with the Amberley school. It has been a major issue in his electorate and, obviously, that school is being moved to facilitate arrangements relating particularly to RAAF personnel and the study of their children. Of course, the money that the government is allocating is going to the new site where those students will continue to study happily and well—hopefully—for a very long period of time to come.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Training and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask the minister a question about Job Services Australia. With respect to the Job Services Australia tender, is the minister aware of any employment-services providers who were not preferred tenderers in a specific employment-service area on 5 March, and who were not advised by email in the department’s communication of 16 March that they were preferred tenderers, but were subsequently offered business in that employment-service area on 2 April? Can the minister provide the reasons for these employment-services providers being offered additional business in each ESA in which this occurred? How were the employment-services providers, who were invited in at this stage, chosen? How were the ESAs chosen? Who made this decision? Can the minister advise in which employment-service areas this occurred?

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In these difficult times, the Rudd government is working hard to support jobs and businesses now, and build economic prosperity for the future. The Building the Education Revolution program is a critical part of this plan. The Education Revolution highlights this government’s commitment to the thousands of students and parents around Australia who will benefit from investment in local communities and improved facilities in schools.

Sixty-two point seven million dollars has already been allocated to schools in my electorate of Isaacs in rounds 1 and 2 of the primary school program. I am speaking constantly to school principals in my electorate and they tell me that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to boost learning resources and bring their schools into the 21st century. This funding will provide major infrastructure works in all schools across Isaacs, as well as essential maintenance which will rejuvenate our local schools by providing school refurbishments and upgrades to existing classrooms. Every primary school in my electorate will receive either a new hall, a library, a learning centre or classrooms. These new facilities will provide modern venues to enhance the learning experience of local students.

Just last Tuesday, I was joined by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Victorian Premier and the Victorian Education Minister, Ms Bronwyn Pike, at Chelsea Heights Primary School for the announcement of $2.5 million in funding for a multipurpose hall there. Danny Mulqueen, the school principal, was ecstatic at the news, which he says will give his students a better and safer learning environment, in particular, for physical education and performing arts.

There is a range of other school projects which have been announced in round 2 of the Building the Education Revolution funding. This includes Rowellyn Park Primary School—a very large primary school in Carrum Downs—where there are $3 million to build new classrooms and a learning resource centre; Carrum Downs Primary School, where there are $3 million in funding to build a new multipurpose hall; Skye Primary School, which has been granted $3 million to build new classrooms and a learning resource centre; St Joachim’s Catholic Primary School, which has been granted $2.5 million to build a new multipurpose hall; Patterson Lakes Primary School, which has received $3 million to build a new multipurpose hall; St Louis de Montfort’s Catholic Primary School, which has received $3 million to build a new multipurpose hall and library; and St Anthony’s Primary School, in Noble Park, which has received some $3 million to build new classrooms and refurbish existing classrooms.

I went to St Anthony’s Primary School just last week and spoke at length to the excellent principal of that school, Marg Batt, and some of her students and teachers. Indeed, I have spoken to principals, teachers and parents at each of the schools in my electorate, and I know from them directly just how delighted they are—along with the whole of their school community—with the funds that have been made available.

As the largest school modernisation program in Australia’s history, it delivers long-term benefits to students and schools. I am proud to see funding for these works assisting schools in my electorate. These projects are supporting local jobs during this global economic downturn. I find it bizarre that members opposite have come out criticising these works. They are trying to run a dishonest scare campaign on debt, yet they have no alternative plan of action when it comes to dealing with the effects of the global financial crisis on local jobs or on the local economy.

This government has placed investment in education front and centre in its response to the current global economic crisis. As the global economy is experiencing its worst recession since the Great Depression, it is important for investment spending to take place now in order to support local employment and future productivity. This government understands the critical importance of education to future productivity growth in our economy. There is a strong link between the development of infrastructure and education services and an increase in productivity in the long term.

I have no doubt that these major infrastructure works that give our local primary schools new libraries, classrooms and multipurpose halls will help contribute to an increase in our nation’s social capital. I look forward to seeing the fruits of this program when these major works are completed. I know that many workers in my electorate are thankful to the Rudd government for this stimulus spending, as it has helped keep them employed while delivering the infrastructure that our local schools need.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the government on the education funding arrangements that are out there, not because they are part of the stimulus package but because they are very fair. They have treated all schools the same. That is something that governments should look at much more closely. The previous and current governments have the Roads to Recovery program, which is a very fair program. I congratulate the government for the initiative. Obviously, those funding arrangements are very welcome in all of our schools. The point raised in question time today really does need to be followed up. What is the general response of the minister where the states are seen to be taking advantage of some of the federal funding—if, in fact, they are? That is something we really do need to keep an eye on.

The Minister for Education would be familiar with the Youth Allowance issue. I thank her staffer Jim Round for the assistance he has given me and some of my constituents in relation to their parental income circumstances. Minister, the issue that really does need to be addressed—and maybe the government will be forced to address this by way of amendment in the Senate when the legislation eventually gets to the Senate—is the requirement to be employed for 30 hours a week over 18 months to be considered independent. Essentially in many small communities—and the community I come from has only about 1,500 people—30 hours a week is a full-time job. There are no full-time jobs. For those young people to go down that path, they have to leave home to find a job to prove that they are independent of their parents so that they can go to university in two years time.

It really does need revisiting. I encourage the minister to address that issue for those students where it is going to be virtually impossible for them to access that work. The minister will probably say that the parental income test will allow many more students to access some degree of youth allowance—and she is quite correct in saying that—but there is a group of students who will miss out and, by missing out, they will not go to university at all. I do not think that is the general intent of the government.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the very specific question asked by the shadow minister for employment participation, training and sport, the member for Boothby, I can say that we will provide him with a detailed answer to that question. Obviously it goes to a set of communications which, he would appreciate, I do not have available to me here in the Main Committee, but I can give an undertaking to provide an answer to him expeditiously, and we will. On the issue relating to Building the Education Revolution raised by two members in their contributions, I thank them for that and I thank them for their understanding about how important this is to their local schools and for supporting local jobs. Whilst the member for New England may not have been in the Main Committee when this was asserted by the shadow minister for education, apprenticeships and training, the shadow minister is asserting that there are some schools that will not benefit at all from the program, and I have asked him to provide a list of those schools so that the government can publish it.

I know the member for New England is concerned about student financing and I very much appreciate the fact that in a very detailed way he has worked through with my office his set of concerns. I know that he appreciates that, overall, out of this package more students will benefit and I know that he appreciates that the substantial changes in the family income tests will be of real benefit for students in his community. I also know he appreciates that the government here is delivering a cost-neutral reform and that the aim is to have sustainability in the budget. Of course, we are in days of economic stimulus now, but that is economic stimulus at the time of the global recession; something like student financing is going to be in the forward estimates from now on for a very, very long time into the future. What we are endeavouring to put together is a package of reforms that is cost neutral on the forward estimates and that benefits more young Australians. But I anticipate that the member for New England will continue to raise these concerns with us and I look forward to that dialogue. I note that he has always raised these concerns in a very constructive way and worked through them in a very honest and detailed way for members of his local community. So I thank him for that.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have some questions for the Minister for Education. In a ministerial statement on education, employment and workplace relations, on page 24 of the budget paper of 12 May, she announced, regarding phase 2:

The remaining up to 222 early learning and care centres will be considered when the child care market is settled and based on the experience of the priority centres.

There has been a considerable departure from the advice provided previously in this statement and in the fact sheet on the department website that states:

… the remaining up to 222 ELCCs would be established progressively by the end of 2014 and delivered as part of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) National Partnership arrangements.

My questions to the minister are as follows: (1) now that it appears that the commitment has been shelved indefinitely, can you outline exactly what criteria will be used to determine when the childcare market is settled; (2) if an assessment of how the first 38 centres are operating will form part of the decision on whether to proceed with the other 222 centres, does that mean that a decision will not be made until all 38 are operational? Presumably that will be well after 2011 and, therefore, long after the next election. The minister has created an out by saying that the 222 centres are contingent on the experience of the first 38 centres, hasn’t she? But she is not listening. This was not a caveat in Mr Rudd’s much publicised election promise to build 260 new centres to end the dreaded double drop-off, was it? She is still not listening.

Regarding the work done on the government’s paid parental leave to date, did the government pay any external consultants to work on the response to the Productivity Commission’s report which was released with the budget. If yes, who were they and how much were they paid? If not, which department did the policy work and prepared the 29-page booklet, Australia’s paid parental leave scheme which was released on budget night? Of the $2.35 million budgeted for communication and evaluation expenses for the coming financial year, exactly how will that be spent given the scheme will not even be coming into effect until halfway through the following financial year?

According to the FaHCSIA budget statement, it will be this department which administers the program. Has a special group or task force been assembled to manage the introduction of paid parental leave? If so, how many people are currently employed in that capacity and what number is that expected to grow to over the coming years? What role will FaHCSIA play in the implementation of the scheme, given that businesses will be paymasters? Is it expected that Centrelink or another body would administer the scheme? In other words, whom would businesses have to deal with in order to ensure that they received the advance payments so that they could pay their employees?

On what modelling was the costing of the scheme based—was it the Productivity Commission’s or another body’s? On page 9 of the budget night booklet on paid parental leave it clearly states that an estimated 148,000 parents would be eligible for the PPL payments each year and it also says that they will on average be around $2,000 better off under the current arrangements. Taking into account tax payable and changes in family payments et cetera, is that correct? Without even taking into account the cost of administering the scheme, that would mean a net cost of $269 million a year. How does this equate with the claim on page 1 that the scheme would cost a total $721 million over five years, which is an average of $146 million a year. Even taking into account that the scheme will not start until mid-2011 does not that equal at least $1.036 billion not $721 million? While I understand there is a complex mixture of family payments affected, it is quite clear that either the figure of $721 million is incorrect or the claim that families will be better off by an average of $2,000 is incorrect.

Even the government has said that 14 per cent of working families would be worse off under this scheme and will have the option to remain under the current scheme. Isn’t that correct? What are the factors that determine whether a family will be worse off? Part of it is timing, isn’t it? Women who take their paid parental leave in the last 18 weeks of the financial year are likely to lose more in tax and family payments than women who take it at the beginning, especially if they intend to take the full 12-months maternity leave as most women do. What consideration has been given to the impact on maternity services if women time their pregnancies for the beginning of the financial year to maximise their benefit? Has any research been conducted on how our hospital system would cope? Of those 14 per cent of working women who would be worse off taking paid parental leave, exactly how will they determine whether they want to take parental leave or not? How accurately will they be able to determine their entitlement and by what method?

Will the $150,000 threshold be indexed? The $150,000 threshold applies to the primary carer’s income not to the family income—is that correct—could you please confirm? A woman who earns a tidy $140,000 and whose partner is a multimillionaire would be eligible for paid parental leave but a family couple who each earn around $78,000 are not eligible for the baby bonus—is that correct? The fact is that only around 127,000 families in any given year would receive the paid parental leave and the other 154,000 would not receive any additional benefit. So the majority of new mothers would not benefit from this new scheme—is that correct?

I would like to clarify another point. On what modelling was the assumption made that this scheme would result in an increase of average leave taken by women after childbirth by around 10 weeks? Aren’t the objectives of increasing workforce participation between pregnancies and at the same time increasing the length of time spent by women caring for their children when they are very young almost mutually exclusive? Is the message really that only the first 18 weeks are important or that six months, the figure referred to in the government booklet, is the right amount of time? Isn’t it a fact, according to the Productivity Commission’s own report, that at least 83 per cent of Australian women already stay at home with their babies for the first six months? Is the message from the government to these 83 per cent of women that they ought to be heading back to the workforce after just six months? In examining this particular scheme has the government given any consideration to the social capital of those women who do not choose to take time out of the paid workforce for a period? What signal does the government send to women who are often the mainstays of our schools, community groups and sporting clubs that their efforts are important to the nation?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the many points raised by the member for Indi, I say as follows. She would be aware that there was a major disruption to the childcare market following the voluntary administration of ABC Learning. She would be aware of that from newspaper reports. She also may be aware of it because there were so many Liberal Party members sitting around the board table of ABC Learning they could have had a branch meeting. They could have had a branch meeting at any time that they choose to whilst they were sitting there—including, of course, former minister Larry Anthony. So, if the member for Indi wishes to seek any advice about the nature of that disruption to the childcare market, she is not short of numbers in her telephone book to place a call to. And I suggest that she does place that call.

Of course, because of the policy and other settings of the former government when faced with the collapse of ABC Learning, we have had to sort out what was a huge mess. We have sorted it out piece by piece, bit by bit, working through it to give as much safety, certainty and security as we possibly could to Australian parents caught up in this. The shadow minister alludes to some centres that have closed. Yes, that is true: some centres have closed. But I invite her to consider what would have happened when ABC Learning announced it was going into voluntary administration if the Australian government had not stepped forward to ensure that there was an orderly process that worked its way through. At some point I would hope that members of the Liberal Party might volunteer some apologies to Australian parents who were caught up in that catastrophic corporate Liberal Party mix.

On the paid parental leave questions that the member asked me, I would say the following. We are, of course, dealing with budget estimates here. I would suggest to the member for Indi that she may want to take a leaf out of the book of the member for Boothby. What I would say about the member for Boothby is that he is a very vociferous user of the questions on notice process. He appreciates that—

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Training and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dr Southcott interjecting

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And we get back to him with answers. I would invite the member for Boothby to compare my record in delivering answers with the record of any Howard minister that he wants to pick at random and then come and have a conversation with me about whether or not we get him answers. If you have detailed things that you want answers to, I would recommend questions on notice to the member for Indi. She is obviously not sure about that. She may want to talk to the member for Boothby about it.

The member for Indi raised a policy question. This is a government that supports choices by women and by families. This is a government that understands that families will make different decisions at the time that they have a child join their family. Some families will determine for the mother to take a period of time off and then return to the workforce. Some families will determine to take a longer period of time off. We support those choices and, consequently, the government’s policy settings support those choices. It may be useful for the member for Indi to know that, if there is at any point any suggestion that the Liberal Party is going to have a childcare policy, a policy about paid parental leave or a policy about anything else in her portfolio area—for example, preschool or early learning—then we are all ears for it. But we have not heard anything yet. With those words, I think we are at the conclusion of this session.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Training and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a brief question.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe the brief question could be supplied to me and we will answer it. Can I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the time for this session has expired. I would remind the members opposite, who are so interested in all of these proceedings, that the routine performance of the Howard ministry was not to attend and to send a parliamentary secretary.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Training and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a brief question to the Deputy Prime Minister. I would like to ask her about the $14.7 billion Building the Education Revolution, which she says will support jobs and which the department says is all about maximising jobs. I would like her estimate of how many jobs will be supported by the $14.7 billion Building the Education Revolution. I would like her estimate of how many jobs will be created or supported by the $600 million Jobs Fund. I would like her estimate on how many jobs will be created for young Australians through the Compact with Young Australians. I also ask the minister: is she aware that, of the 85,000 places set aside for apprenticeships in the Productivity Places Program, only 154 places have been taken up? Does she regard this as a success? Does she regard this as a failure? What is she going to do about it?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He has snuck one additional question in. I refer the member for Boothby to the macroeconomic forecasts in the budget papers, which make it perfectly clear—and it is something that his party should reflect on—that the government’s economic stimulus endeavours are supporting employment. The difference is more than 200,000 jobs. The difference is a difference of 1½ per cent in the unemployment rate at what is predicted to be the peak of unemployment. That is very important in supporting Australians who want to work and in supporting their families. I think it is to be regretted that the Liberal Party did not see its way clear to support this economic stimulus and the jobs that it is supporting. I refer him to those macroeconomic forecasts.

On the Productivity Places Program, this program is working well. He knows that in fact it has been very, very strongly sought after. Indeed, so sought after has the program been that one of the common complaints I suspect he gets is from registered training organisations who want more places and rapid delivery. He would be aware that in this budget we are investing more than $5 billion in apprenticeships and related measures.

Proposed expenditure—$7,601,757—agreed to.

Debate (on motion by Ms Jackson) adjourned.