Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Hansard source

The Building the Education Revolution program is a program out of control. It is a program that is being mismanaged, it is a program that is costing the taxpayer tens of millions of dollars of waste and it is a program in which many schools are not getting what they wanted. It is a program that is causing such concern that the Auditor-General has initiated a full program audit—a full performance audit. I do not think ever in the nation’s history has an audit been initiated just a few months into the commencement of program.

Let me give you a little Nostradamus. Let me speculate on what the future holds in relation to this program and what the Auditor-General might find. No doubt he will find that state governments will be fleecing this incompetent minister and this incompetent government, skimming off the project management fees, skimming off the taxpayers’ dollars to go who knows where. No doubt also Nostradamus would predict that the Auditor-General might find that the cost per square metre of buildings under this program is vastly more expensive than comparable commercial projects purchased out in the marketplace. We have seen today an example in Berridale Public School where, at $2,640 per square metre, the school is able to construct a double-brick shower and toilet block. Yet under Building the Education Revolution they are going to be paying $5,660 per square metre for a prefab structure. That is more than double the cost for a prefabricated structure as opposed to a double-brick building. He may also find that many schools are being forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars for plans and designs which they could probably get cheaper elsewhere. But let us not let value for money become a problem, because value for money is something that this government has not concerned itself with.

What else might the Auditor-General find? I think the Auditor-General could find that there is some degree of corruption in the tender process, where we have local contractors forbidden from putting in a bid. How is that complying with a good tender outcome if local contractors are forbidden from bidding and you get outside tenderers coming in? Does it make sense to have contractors coming in from afar to build a project where local builders may have been able to do the job more efficiently and may have been able to do the job more cheaply if only they had been permitted to bid? This is a program that is out of control.

We have had the minister refer to a $1.7 billion cost overrun as nothing but a bump in the road, a $1.7 billion bump in the road. I suppose the minister would also say that the Titanic hit a speed bump. But I am sure that the Australian taxpayer is concerned by cost overruns in the order of $1.7 billion, particularly when they would be paying for that cost overrun out of debt. The key is that the cost overruns and the inefficiencies in this program and the gross mismanagement of this program are being paid for by the Australian taxpayer through debt. They will not only be paying for this mismanagement by this government, they will be paying the interest on top. The taxpayers of this country should be able to demand value for money, and the criterion of value for money was strangely missing when this program had its genesis. It was only at the 11th hour when they realised that costs were overrunning that they included the criterion of value for money.

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context