Mr LLOYD(10.17 a.m.) —I rise today to speak on the Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Amendment Bill 1997 . This bill confirms this government's commitment to providing fairer and more effective education outcomes by repealing sections of the Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Act 1989 that were unnecessarily restrictive and denied Commonwealth funding assistance to certain educational institutions, despite the same institutions having a significant number of indigenous enrolments.

You have heard, Mr Deputy Speaker, from my colleague the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Entsch), whom I have a great deal of respect for when dealing with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues.

Mr Slipper —He's a great member.

Mr LLOYD —He is a great member. I have had the privilege of travelling with him to many of these areas on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs.

Mr Slipper interjecting—

Mr LLOYD —No, he is a member of that committee; he does not chair that committee.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The committee does not need the assistance of the member for Fisher.

Mr LLOYD —I have learnt a great deal about the difficulties of education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in many of the isolated areas. This bill addresses some of those difficulties. In my own electorate of Robertson, which is basically an urban electorate, we do have a significant population of Aboriginal people. They do have some of the difficulties with educational provisions in the electorate. This amendment will also help to address some of those difficulties with one school in particular in my electorate.

Currently, sections 10D, 10E and 10F of the Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Act require that at least 10 per cent of the enrolled students be indigenous—referred to, of course, as the 10 per cent requirement—before a non-government, non-systemic, pre-school, school or non-government vocational education and training institution can be funded under the indigenous education strategic initiative program. This program is designed to deliver funding to assist in ensuring the quality of access to educational services and achieving equity of educational participation and enabling equitable and appropriate education outcomes for indigenous Australians.

The 10 per cent requirement, as you have heard from the member for Leichhardt, has become a problem with some educational institutions with substantial indigenous enrolments. Some of these schools are ineligible for funding assistance because, whilst they may have large numbers of indigenous students, these students make up less than 10 per cent of that institutions' total enrolment, and the institution is not eligible for that assistance.

The explanatory memorandum to this bill provides an accurate example of how a non-systemic school with 70 indigenous enrolments cannot attract that supplementary recurrent funding because its total enrolment is more than 700 and, therefore, it fails the 10 per cent requirement. This is an example of a government that is trying to put forward legislation that works. When there are difficulties in legislation, we recognise those difficulties, and this amendment is going to address some of those difficulties.

The bill, however, does not amend the requirements for there to be a minimum of five indigenous students in a non-government, non-systemic pre-school, 20 indigenous students in a non-government, non-systemic school and 20 indigenous students in a non-government, non-systemic VET institution. We heard earlier from the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Latham) that he intends to move an amendment which will remove this requirement, and we heard from the member for Leichhardt that he feels this amendment is not necessary. I am sure that there will be further discussions about the likelihood of this amendment being put forward.

These regulations more than adequately avoid the administrative costs that would be involved in providing a small amount of money for one or two students in these schools if these regulations were removed. As well, they would avoid the situation where individual students gain no real benefit from a relatively small grant.

Mr Latham —About 19.

Mr LLOYD —We have to set the levels at some level. If we set it at 10, would you say that nine was inadequate? If we set it at 20, would you say that 19 was inadequate? There has to be a level of commonsense.

The opposition does not seem to have any concept about wasting money. What is the point in spending more money on administrative costs to deliver a few dollars to an individual student when the money is not sufficient to put in place a useful, purposeful scheme? So you are going to waste taxpayers' money and government money on administration without providing any real service to the people who need it. I am sure there will be more discussions about the amendment.

These important features will, and must, remain in place. If this is done, the minimum 10 per cent requirement is simply not necessary, and that is why the government is moving to remove this 10 per cent requirement. Schedule 1 of this bill will repeal this restrictive and unnecessary regulation. The benefits of these amendments are obvious. They will allow for non-government, non-systemic schools, such as the one to which I have already referred with its 70 indigenous pupils, to qualify for funding assistance where they previously were ineligible because of the 10 per cent requirement.

Funding recipients will still be required to enter into the funding arrangements with the Commonwealth. There are no additional administrative costs to the Commonwealth, or to the state or territory governments. I think that is an important fact to note. The bill will provide for more effective and fairer funding assistance than that provided under the existing act without negative impacts.

Schedule 2 of this bill provides for the adjustment of grants under the indigenous education strategic initiative program in line with the cost increases for the period to 30 June 2000. The financial impact of this bill is to provide a small increase in the amounts appropriated for the years up to 2000. Commonwealth grants for school programs to the states and territories which are in excess of $14 billion over the period 1997-2000 are already subject to cost supplementation. The indigenous education strategic initiative program is not currently supplemented in the same way. The new provisions will maintain the real value of the program until 30 June 2000.

In summary, this bill will amend the existing legislation to provide more effective funding solutions to non-government, non-systemic educational institutions, benefiting both indigenous students and the institutions themselves. I commend the bill to the House.