Ms JULIE BISHOP (9:06 PM) —This is very much a case of deja vu all over again—as they say in the classics. The States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 2002, which is before the House, is the third bill of its kind in just eight months. The first was the Innovation and Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2001, an omnibus bill dealing not only with the adjustment of schools funding but also with the post-graduate education loan scheme and the implementation of aspects of the federal government's innovation and science policy. Despite its clear passage through the House, the bill was dismembered in the Senate and the required amendments to school funding were not passed.

In August 2001, the measures in question were reintroduced as the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001. That bill failed to pass through the Senate in the final sitting week of the 39th Parliament. Such legislative sabotage might be expected were the bill a matter of great controversy, of conflicted principles. But this bill, like its predecessors, intends only to appropriate the necessary funds to meet the requirements of legislation passed without amendment by the opposition two years ago. That original legislation introduced both the establishment grants system for new schools and the socioeconomic status funding system.

Since the passage of that act, it has become apparent that there is a shortfall in funding for meeting applications for establishment grants from eligible schools. The member for Greenway tried to make something of this but the fact is that the source of this shortfall can be traced to the necessity of using the 1999 new schools student enrolment statistics for the original appropriation estimates. With average enrolments at new schools more than doubling between 1999 and 2000, and with a number of the schools established in that year having relatively large enrolments, a revised estimate puts the required appropriation at $11.9 million for 2001 to 2004, rather than the original estimate of just under $5 million. The government in late 2000 recognised the anomaly and it was acted upon by the government in June 2001. Yet the actions of the opposition in opposing what is simply an amendment to legislation that it supported, an amendment that does not in any way change the policy inherent in that original legislation, have delayed its resolution for almost two years.

This is not an abstract exercise. The concrete result of the opposition's approach has been the deprivation of funding to schools across Australia. Of the 58 schools eligible for the establishment grants in question, 49 have received just 50 per cent of the funding to which they were entitled. Nine have received only 25 per cent of their appropriate funding. I did not hear the opposition spokeswoman explain to the House why it was that her predecessor, who has since been ejected from this House by his own electors in Dobell, was so willing to compromise the educational future of 4,900 students, just to make a cynical political point. That is 4,900 students, from schools including Lutheran, Baptist, Assembly of God, Montessori, Anglican, Steiner, Islamic, Aboriginal and special schools. It includes students attending schools like Nyikina Mangala Community School in my friend the member for Kalgoorlie's electorate, a school serving one of the most disadvantaged and isolated communities in Australia.

I ask the opposition: was it worth it? Isn't the Australian Education Union already joined at the hip with the ALP? Was it really necessary to deny over $1.5 million in schools grants just to send out another press release? You would forgive speakers on this side of the House if they became a little anxious or emotional during this debate, for they are concerned about the plight of schools in their electorates. Having spoken in support of both previous bills, I am truly mystified as to the objective of the opposition in this matter.

Two schools in my electorate, Sowilo Community High School in Wembley and Bold Park Community School, have been denied funding to which they are otherwise entitled, simply because of the failings of the opposition in the Senate. Sowilo is still waiting on $6,500 from 2001, while Bold Park is waiting for almost $8,000 from 2001 and 2002. Must the students at these schools pay for the inconsistencies of the ALP? I genuinely hope not. I hope that the opposition recognises the cynicism of its actions last year and passes this bill, in line with its prior support for the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act of 2000. This new parliament affords them the opportunity to resolve quietly this matter, to allow for the amounts already advanced to schools for 2001 and 2002 to be deducted from entitlements calculated as a result of this amending legislation, with the proviso that no school receive less than has already been paid.

I noted that my friend and colleague the new Minister for Education, Science and Training was in the House earlier and I take this opportunity to congratulate him on attaining his well-deserved cabinet position. He has already demonstrated his capacity and his energy for this portfolio, coupled with the necessary intellectual rigour. I wish him well in this portfolio. He has certainly got off to a great start. The new bill that he has introduced also sets the appropriation for the establishment grants as a standing rather than a special appropriation and specifies per capita rates for those grants. This is appropriate, given the secure planning basis that it provides to administrators and parents.

The arguments advanced by the opposition as cover for its cynicism have already been countered at length by the government. The issue of the $30 million in capital works demanded as a quid pro quo has not stood up to the simple fact that the government provided an extra $238 million in funding for state schools in the 2001 budget. The question marks on the legitimacy of certain new school applications have been dealt with in detail and the obvious point has been made that the determination of new school status resides with state registration authorities— bodies that I would have thought the opposition would agree are best placed to make those determinations.

As I noted in the House last year during debate on the second legislative attempt to fix this problem, socialist ideology has grossly distorted the debate on schools funding. It has killed the bipartisanship that recognised the respective roles of the Commonwealth and the states in primary and secondary education. Decades ago, the Commonwealth stepped in to ensure that tax-paying parents who, for religious or other reasons, did not see a cent of their taxes go towards their children's education were not barred from government assistance.

For three decades the respective roles of the Commonwealth and the states in school funding, with the Commonwealth having principal responsibility for the non-government sector and the states having principal responsibility for the government sector, have been settled. But this Labor Party, now in its third term of opposition, has thrown back into public debate a matter thought settled in the 1960s. The good news is that the attempt to utilise the politics of envy to undermine Commonwealth support to non-government schools has been an abject failure. I have already noted the fate of Mr Lee. I should also note the increased majority achieved by the then minister for education, now the minister for the environment. Members might note that, prior to the 2001 federal election, we were given numerous puff pieces in the media about an independent challenge to the minister in his seat of Goldstein based on these very issues concerning schools funding. I am sure that more words were gushed in praising that challenge than votes were actually cast in support of it. In fact, the vote achieved by that much-hyped candidate matches almost exactly the collapse in the Labor vote in Goldstein—telling!

It hardly needs to be said but it seems I must reiterate, for the benefit of members opposite, that both private and public education have places in Australia today, that there are public schools that cater to students from all socioeconomic backgrounds and that there are private schools that cater to students from all socioeconomic backgrounds. By virtue of history, the Commonwealth and the states have assumed different responsibilities for each sector. We need to cut through the ideology, cut through the prejudice, cut through the self-interest and recognise the reality of how state government and non-government schools are funded in this country. I commend this bill to the House.