Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. Why have stimulus payments being denied to the Royal Far West School and to the Stewart House School in my electorate on the grounds that they have a transient enrolment, while a $300,000 stimulus payment has been made available to the Palm Avenue School in my electorate which also has a transient enrolment? How can the minister explain this inconsistency, especially given that the schools denied funding are continuing to operate but the school given funding has just been closed by the New South Wales government?

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

I thank the member for his question. The member who asked the question has been in contact with me and my office about this individual school, and what he knows from that contact is that the guidelines of the Building the Education Revolution Program did not provide, have never provided, for schools that have transient populations. Similar criteria have been used in the past for federal government capital programs because obviously the aim here, when we are talking about schools with transient populations like hospital schools, is that children go to them for a very limited period of time but their primary enrolment is in another school, their home school in their own community, and so their enrolment is counting towards the Building the Education Revolution allocations in their home school.

The member who asked the question would also be aware that I have been working with him, I thought, to discuss the matters with the New South Wales government, because I understand that there are transient schools that have needs. As we know, the Building the Education Revolution guidelines require state governments to keep up their same level of capital investment. So of course it is possible for the school that he seeks to be advantaged—and I can understand as a local member he is advocating for his schools; that is proper—to benefit through a state government program, and we have been working with him on that.

On the question of school closures, can I refer the member and the House to the Building the Education Revolution guidelines, which have always been crystal clear on this component. I will quote them to the House:

Where two or more schools have a planned amalgamation over the next three years into either a new school site or an expansion of one of the existing schools, then the indicative funding allocation for the schools to be emerged may be combined to be used for capital or refurbishment in the new school.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order on relevance, I appreciate the answer that the Deputy Prime Minister is giving me, but it is the inconsistency of treatment that I asked about and that is what I would appreciate an answer on.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Warringah will resume his seat. The Deputy Prime Minister is responding to the question.

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

Well, of course there is no inconsistency of treatment. I have explained to him the circumstances of transient schools—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

which have been used—before opposition members start jeering too much—in relation to federal government building programs in the past.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Julie Bishop interjecting

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

So the Deputy Leader of the Opposition might have a little think about that before she interjects further. On the amalgamation criteria, they have always been clear: if a school is amalgamating and not continuing, if it is merging, if schools are going to a new school site, then the Building the Education Revolution money goes to a continuing school.

Can I also say to members of the opposition on this point that schools do open and close over time. We all know that. We all know in particular that small schools are at risk of closure. But can I say this to the House and to the members opposite: we on this side of the House are not going to discriminate against small schools in the allocation of funds under the Building the Education Revolution Program. There are 1,373 schools with enrolments of between one and 50 students. I presume what the members of the Liberal and National parties would say to us is: ‘Don’t invest in those schools because they’re at risk of closure.’ Well, let me tell you something. This government is not going to discriminate against small schools who are predominantly located in rural and regional electorates and places around the country. You might want to discriminate against country kids. The opposition might think that that is all well and good to discriminate against country kids in small schools. Well, we will not. And we will continue to ensure that they benefit under the Building the Education Revolution Program.

Can I conclude by thanking the member for Flinders for making it absolutely clear, in the pages of the Australian newspaper last week, that the opposition considers that every dollar of this $16.2 billion for schools is a waste—his direct words, his direct quote. Well, the principals, teachers, students and parents of Australia believe it is a great investment in schools. It says something about the value system of the Liberal Party that they think investing $16.2 billion in schools is a waste.