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

My question is to the Minister for Education. I refer her to the minutes of the Eatons Hill State School P&C Association of 27 February, which state: ‘Eatons Hill State School was ineligible to receive funds from the BER scheme for construction of a hall, as it had already started planning its multipurpose hall. The principal was advised that the multipurpose hall project was ineligible to receive BER funds because it had already received SSS scheme funding from DETA of $151,000.’ And I refer her to an email from the principal on 13 March to various people, including the member for Petrie, which says: ‘Our school would be eligible for up to $3 million in funding for the two major—’

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 91 says that a member’s conduct should be considered disorderly if the member persistently and wilfully refuses to conform to the standing orders. This is an extremely long question, and the member for Sturt is a serial offender.

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

The member for Werriwa will resume his seat. There is no point of order.

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

An email on 13 March this year from the principal to the member for Petrie and others says: ‘I wish to confirm the following outcomes of a meeting with me on Friday 13 March as arranged by Murray Watt, who was accompanied by Yvette D’Ath, that our school would be eligible for up to $3 million in funding for up to two major projects under the BER guidelines.’ I ask the Minister for Education: how were the guidelines altered, or ignored, between 27 February and 13 March, and is that alteration or ignoring the case for all schools or just the Eatons Hill State School during the Queensland state election?

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

I thank the member for Sturt, the shadow minister for education, who is opposed to expenditure on schools, for the question. I will answer his question very specifically, and he might learn something about a $14 billion school modernisation program he is opposed to. From the very outset, as soon as passage of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan was secured through the parliament against the trenchant opposition of the Liberal Party, which does not want expenditure on Australian schools—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. This is the Ros Kelly defence and, as such, is—

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

The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. Deputy Prime Minister.

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

As soon as passage of the bill was secured we issued guidelines and commenced consultative activities around the nation to answer questions about this program. In fact, the very first of those was a stakeholders forum in this Parliament House addressed by the Prime Minister and me. At that very first stakeholders forum a person asked: if you have already secured funds from another source, can you use those funds to work with a grant from the Building the Education Revolution program? The Prime Minister and I—at the very first stakeholders forum ever held on the Nation Building and Jobs Plan—said yes. What we also said was: ‘Of course, we would want to be satisfied that there was not a substitution effect, because the aim of this program is to get extra money to schools and to support jobs around the country. So we would want to be assured that there was no substitution effect, but that partnering, that top-up, can be done.’

Since that very first stakeholders forum in this Parliament House I personally would have been asked this question several dozen times by representatives of independent schools and Catholic schools that have engaged in some fundraising: can we put our money with your money and make a bigger project? The answer has always been yes, yes, yes. Obviously the same question was raised in relation to the Eatons Hill State School community hall, and the member for Petrie provided the answer that I would have provided if I were there, that the Prime Minister would have provided if he were there and that every member of the Labor Party would have provided if they were there, which was: yes, that can be done.

Is there some confusion about these things? Yes, when you are engaging in the biggest school modernisation program this nation has ever seen. Yes, some local schools get part of the information wrong or a bit of wrong information and they need someone to help them out with it. Do you know what that job of helping out is called? It is called being a member of parliament. There are two categories of members of parliament in this House. There is the Labor Party and the Independents doing their job competently and there are those fools opposite who are opposed to expenditure on their local schools. Remarkable!