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

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Sturt proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Government to properly manage the Building the Education Revolution program

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

The public would be scratching their heads today to remember a time when so much money had been so misspent, and misspent so quickly, as is being misspent through the bungled, mismanaged debacle that has become the schools stimulus spend-a-thon . The minister likes to call it the Building the Education Revolution. Some of us suspect that she would prefer to call it the Great Leap Forward rather than the Building the Education Revolution but she probably failed to get that title past the ‘hollowmen’ of the Prime Minister’s office—although she did manage to get a $3 million plaques campaign past the hollowmen of the Prime Minister’s office so that she can be remembered in perpetuity.

There is $14.7 billion being mismanaged by a minister who we used to think had too much on her plate. We used to think that in being a part-time education minister she just did not have enough time to manage her portfolio. But, since the passage of the Fair Work Bill through the parliament, what has become painfully apparent to the Australian taxpayer is that the minister cannot actually manage a program, whether it is the computers-in-schools program, which blew out from $800 million to $2.2 billion and is now delivering half and costing more than twice as much, or whether it is the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program, which was to put a trade training centre in every secondary school and is now being shared between 10 schools that cluster together to form one trade training centre. Now it is the schools stimulus debacle. Unfortunately, when it comes to the detail, the minister keeps spilling the drinks.

Our concerns revolve around many facets of this program but they can be headlined by the failure of the government to genuinely promote the regional aspect to what was supposed to be a jobs stimulus package in the regions as well as the cities, through the failure to use local businesses in many instances and through skimming by state governments, who are vacating their responsibilities now that the so-called Building the Education Revolution is in full swing. State governments realise they can rush away from the table and take what meagre resources they were going to put into capital works and leave the federal government—and the federal taxpayer—holding the baby.

We are concerned about profiteering by private enterprise and individuals who are inflating their tender contract figures simply because demand and supply have been suspended by this program. There is simply not enough capacity in the system to supply the demand that the government is asking of the private sector. When the private sector say to government bureaucrats, ‘We simply have not got the capacity to do this,’ they say: ‘We have to get this money out the door. We have to rush this money out the door, so you will simply have to do it.’ The private sector respond, ‘We cannot afford it,’ and are told, ‘Well, put up your contract figures and you will be able to do it.’ That is exactly what is happening through private companies. Whether they are profiteering deliberately or simply because bureaucrats are encouraging them to do so, there is profiteering.

We are concerned about the poorly targeted spending. It does not take into account the needs of schools and local communities. Instead, it insists on a centrally planned, centrally controlled template of options. Schools are being presented with these with sometimes one day to make the decision about whether they wish to take the template from the federal government, even though there might be real infrastructure that they need to have in their schools.

We are also concerned about the waste and mismanagement of projects where literally billions of taxpayers’ dollars are being spent on ‘Versace’ stuff, to quote one expert in the field. Those wasted dollars are hard-earned taxes created by Australian taxpayers to be used on genuine infrastructure but we are seeing those dollars wasted and disappearing.

The only solution to this morass of mismanagement and this wanton waste is to refer the entire management of the program to the Auditor-General to determine exactly what is happening and what needs to happen to make the program work. Nobody on this side of the House begrudges the opportunity for schools to improve their infrastructure. But we do not believe—and neither should the government—that means waste and mismanagement should be tolerated. The Auditor-General will get to the bottom of exactly what is going on with the so-called Building the Education Revolution.

I turn to some of the details of these failures. On the issue of skimming by state governments, I quote the Prime Minister in a press conference he gave on 3 February 2009:

This Government will adopt a zero tolerance approach to any State Government whatever its political complexion, to any substitution of effort, let’s be very clear about that.

How does the minister explain to the House why in Victoria state government promises made at election time—under the rubric of schools policy—to build new infrastructure, new schools and new refurbishments in existing schools are being taken off the table right across Victoria as the state government realises its chance to run from the field and leave the field to the Commonwealth to pick up the pieces?

How does she explain the South Australian government budget 10 days ago reducing capital spending by 12 per cent? In a state like South Australia, that represents about $8 million but most parents and grandparents would be expecting that every year capital spending in South Australia would be increasing because of the needs of the public school system. They would not expect it to fall by 12 per cent. Coincidentally, of course, it comes at the same time as the federal government is putting $1 billion into South Australia for the so-called Building the Education Revolution. They are clearly skimming federal taxpayers’ money and it is the minister’s responsibility to do something about it. If she will not do something about it, she should ask the Auditor-General to do something about it.

Then there is the whole issue of preferred tenderers. The member for Bradfield raised in this House on 17 March a very good example in his own electorate—Wahroonga Public School. He is a very good member.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members—Hear, hear!

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

The member for Bradfield is an excellent member, and I see two excellent members sitting together in the House. The member for Bradfield raised the Wahroonga Public School, which had received a $22,660 quotation from a local fencing company to be spent at that school. But Spotless, the preferred state government tenderer, had also tendered for $40,122. There was a $17,000 difference, and of course Spotless was told that they would win the tender and the local tenderer was told that they had missed out. The minister would say, ‘What is $17,000?’ Seventeen thousand dollars is just a Versace suit to the minister. The $17,000 is a metaphor for exactly what is going on in the so-called Building the Education Revolution on the grand scale as well as on the micro scale. Why doesn’t the minister wish to act? Why is the minister hiding from the Auditor-General’s scrutiny of yet another one of her bungled, failed programs? Unfortunately, this is a minister who is long on rhetoric and short on delivery.

In terms of waste and management, Reed Construction Data, who are considered to be the industry bible on building costs, are absolutely shocked at the amount of money that is being spent on school halls. The Australian of last Saturday stated:

Reed’s chief estimator, Gary Thornley, said an average school hall should cost no more than $1000 per square metre to build.

A three-storey office block could be built for the price the government was spending on halls, he said.

And I agree with him. The article quotes him as saying:

I reckon $3m is a really big hit …

Even if we went beserk we’d never come up with that figure. Whoever has produced that figure has taken it out of their earlobe. It’s Versace stuff.

Unfortunately, the government has gone berserk and we do have a minister who has no control over what is going on at the grassroots level in her department. She has taken it out of her earlobe, and that is the problem. That is the answer from Mr Thornley. Most of these quotes are in the minister’s earlobe and she is pulling them out and throwing them on the ground for her bureaucrats to pick up. The bureaucrats are rushing them out into the public and the builders are saying: ‘This is a tremendous amount of money, but we’re hardly going to argue about it. Why wouldn’t we want to make a profit?’ The losers are the hardworking taxpayers of Australia.

But there are much worse examples. Take the Hastings Public School. The minister confused this school yesterday with the Hastings Primary School in Victoria—we have always been talking about the New South Wales one. The principal, to his great credit, because he would be fearing repercussions from probably the New South Wales Labor Party for speaking out, said he was shocked. He said:

It’s not my money. It’s not your money. It needs to be used properly.

He is quite right; it is taxpayers’ money. He also said:

I am intrigued as to how the figures have been arrived at and who gave them a figure of $400,000 for what is essentially a weather shelter.

Reflecting on our experience of six years ago—

and the minister has still failed to answer these questions after two days—

we built a COLA—

a covered outdoor learning area—

that is almost as big as the one we anticipate to build now, and it cost just over $40,000.

Even if there were another contribution that made the total cost $80,000, she entirely failed today in her answer to deal with the fact that today it is $400,000. He said:

Inflation hasn’t increased 10-fold in six years.

I’m expecting the Taj Mahal of COLAs.

And I imagine so is his local community. The article stated:

Mr Heaton said $2.6m for the new double classroom also seemed too high.

“I’ve got a friend in the building industry and his jaw dropped when I mentioned the figure to him,” he said.

“It’s a very large figure for two classrooms.

              …              …              …

“I want someone to show me why a weather shelter is going to cost $400,000.”

I think that is a reasonable question, but for some reason the minister refuses to answer it.

There are more examples. There is poorly targeted spending in the Prime Minister’s own electorate at the Holland Park State School, where they are required to have the same school facility rebuilt. Craig Mayne says about the Queensland state government bureaucrats:

It’s just numbers to them.

That about sums it up. It is all just numbers to them—numbers to get the money out the door as quickly as possible. Any justification or scrutiny of the decisions that have been made is not nearly as important as the fact that they can go on the news at night on Channel 7 or another channel and say they are spending $14.7 billion. I am sure the public think that $14.7 billion being spent on school infrastructure in some respects would be justified, but they would also want it to be spent sensibly. They would not want it to be spent in a wasteful and mismanaged way. Unfortunately, that is what this government is delivering.

The piece de resistance so far, and I am sure it will get worse, is that project managers in Queensland are being paid at least twice as much as the Prime Minister to manage these projects—$525,000 over six months. Members on the other side must be amazed that the minister is allowing them to get away with this. They are being paid $525,000 over six months to manage these projects. That is much more than the Prime Minister earns in a year. What did the minister do when she was asked about that today? She said, ‘We have a 1½ per cent administrative fee.’ She completely avoided the question that was asked. The facts on the ground are showing that half a million dollars is going to project managers in Queensland. What is she doing about it?

I could go on and on, and I am sure the minister would like me to. I could talk about the Cleve Area School, about how eight classrooms can turn into four in a three-month period, an inflation figure somewhere between Ethiopia’s and Zimbabwe’s, or the lunacy of air-conditioning not being allowed to be included in existing buildings, which the member for Kalgoorlie raised yesterday, but I will finish on the really pernicious issue that the minister today refused to address—that is, the Orwellian nature of the guidelines that stop any criticism of the government; the Orwellian nature of writing a guideline which strikes fear into the hearts of principals and the chairs of governing councils around Australia. They have given us a lot more information than we have been able to use, I assure the House. They do not want their names used, because they are frightened of Labor Party recrimination.

If the minister were genuine about wanting accountability and transparency, she would lift the veil of secrecy that exists over this program and hand it to the Auditor-General. Clear up the mess, Minister. Give it to the Auditor-General and save taxpayers’ dollars.

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

What we did not hear in 15 minutes of invective and allegation was anything approaching a fact. I think that is best demonstrated by the fact that the school that the shadow minister referred to in his address—indeed, it was one of the few schools he actually referred to by name in a generalised attack of invective without facts—was a school in the electorate of the member for Bradfield. He sought to use the name of that school, and the project there, to say that there is something wrong with the Building the Education Revolution program. I think it says all we need to know about the calibre of the shadow minister’s contributions to this place that the project he refers to at that school is not a Building the Education Revolution project. It is not within this program of Building the Education Revolution. I am actually going to visit that school with the member for Bradfield. We have looked at the project the member for Bradfield raised in the parliament with me some time back. It is not a Building the Education Revolution project, as the shadow minister has tried to make out. His was an address long on invective and short on facts.

In terms of the various things that the shadow minister said which are not accurate, and should not be allowed to stand unchallenged, let me make the following points. He made an assertion about the Digital Education Revolution program and the provision of computers to students in years 9 to 12. He sought to assert that somehow that program had been halved. That is completely untrue. The government is honouring its election commitment to bring computers to students in years 9 to 12 with an effective one to one ratio. What we promised is what we will deliver. Anything said to the contrary is simply not correct—an assertion that has been made by the shadow minister before; an assertion he either does not understand because he has not looked at the facts long enough or an assertion he makes while the facts are so startlingly different.

Then the shadow minister made an assertion about the trades training centre program of the government. He has made this assertion before. He has sought to leave people with the impression that somehow this program has been reduced, that somehow what would have been a benefit for each secondary school in the country is now only a benefit if schools cluster into groups—and he made reference to a group of 10. That assertion is completely untrue. The trades training centre program is being rolled out, as promised to the Australian people, on the basis that it can benefit every secondary school in the country. What has happened is schools have elected to work together to bring greater resources together and therefore build bigger facilities. Sometimes schools have decided—

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr John Cobb interjecting

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

Mr Pyne interjecting

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

I get commentary coming across the table now. But I think that if a principal in good faith works with principals in their region, and says the best thing they could do, rather than each school exercising its entitlement under the program, would be to come together and do something together, then I think that decision and that educational judgement should be respected. For the shadow minister to try and contend that the fact that that is happening means that there is somehow less of an entitlement for each school is simply not correct. Each school could exercise its entitlement under the program—the program is there being delivered as promised, but they have made a different decision. Once again, the shadow minister is long on invective, very keen to parade himself in front of his colleagues, no doubt taking out some insurance against future wheeling and dealing within the Liberal Party. But what never comes to his lips during the course of that is a fact.

On the questions raised about Building the Education Revolution, the shadow minister at the table has repeated things that he said in the Main Committee last night. He says that this program is not targeted right. It does seem to me a moderately amusing assertion in circumstances where he opposes the whole program. Under his world view, and under the world view he voted for in this parliament, not one school would get anything. But even if we put aside the absolute irony that the apparent policy of the Liberal Party in education is they stand for better targeting of nothing—because that is what they would deliver if they were elected—let us just deal with the shadow minister’s criticism. Let us say the shadow minister is serious about better targeting. I told him in the Main Committee last night, and I tell him again in this parliament today: if he believes this program can be better targeted, and if he will provide me with a list of the schools that he thinks have infrastructure at a standard that they do not need Building the Education Revolution, then I will take the list of schools he says should get nothing under the program, I will publish it on the government’s website and we will allow the matter to be debated in the community. If he wants to do that, give me a list of schools that he says should get nothing, I will publish that list for him. I will make sure, through every communications channel available to the government, that it is disseminated throughout the community and we will have the debate. I made that offer to him yesterday evening. I am yet to receive the list.

Then of course the shadow minister makes assertions about whether or not this is supporting local jobs. I do not know whether the shadow minister spends much time talking to people in his electorate. He may not. But if he did speak to people in his electorate they would say the following to him. The Tagara Group, a construction company based in the member for Sturt’s electorate, said:

The additional (school) projects … may mean about $48 million in sales for Tagara that would otherwise not have been achieved …

Presumably, as a local member, as a shadow minister, as a member of the Liberal Party, as a supporter of the Leader of the Opposition, he does not think the Tagara Group should have that opportunity to support those jobs.

Another business in the member’s electorate, Bettio Building Contractors, have indicated that they are hoping to take on two large school projects, securing them $6 million. They said: ‘We’d like to think we’d employ a minimum of two extra staff.’ Presumably, the shadow minister, the member for Sturt, does not think those two people should have jobs. The story of Sturt is a story that is replicated right around this nation. And right around this nation the Building the Education Revolution program is rolling out to support jobs in local communities and rolling out so that it is giving our schools the infrastructure they need for the 21st century.

Then the shadow minister comes in here and, perversely, makes claims on the one hand that this is a Versace program and that somehow too much money is being put into each school building, and then on other occasions he leaps on the other foot and says that not enough is being provided so that the school can build the facility that they are planning. At some point, the shadow minister has to decide whether he is Arthur or Martha, whether what is being provided is too much to build the facility or too little. It is not logically consistent to maintain both positions. He then quotes a figure that is a ‘per metre construct’ figure given by a construction company. I am sure that the constructor gave the figure in good faith. But what the shadow minister ought to know, if he knew anything about the Building the Education Revolution program, is that we are not just talking about the physical construct; we are talking about all of the fit-out inside the building so it is fit for purpose.

Anybody who has built a home, or who has done some renovations at home, knows that there is a substantial difference in the figure between lockup, as builders call it, and actually being back in a fully fitted facility. A kitchen at lockup will be the walls; a kitchen that is a fully fitted facility will have the sink available, all of the plumbing available, all of the tiling done, the range hood and all of those sorts of things. We are talking about buildings that are acquitted so they are fit for purpose: interactive whiteboards, seating, amplification systems, cooling, heating—whatever is necessary to make sure that these buildings are fit for purpose. It is no mystery that a builder would give a per metre construction price and that that would be different from what it is actually going to cost to roll out this program. The difference is in the fit-out.

The shadow minister then makes some allegations about profiteering. The problem with that is that he has not got one fact. When he made those allegations, the picture he was trying to create was of a building and construction industry that had so much work to do and so many jobs to pick from that they could pick and choose, they could put their prices up and rip people off and it would not matter because people were so desperate to get the attentions of that builder. Hasn’t the shadow minister heard of the global recession? The reason we are rolling this program out now, as anyone in building and construction will tell you, is that private sector investment in the building and construction industry is in retreat. If we had not acted, then there would be builders around this country—and the people who worked for them: the plumbers, the tilers, the carpenters et cetera—who would not have jobs. The only reason economic stimulus is necessary at this time is the global recession. With the private sector in retreat, to support economic development in this country, to support economic activity, we need to make sure that the surplus capacity in the economy is not left idle with people on unemployment queues, that they have things to do—things that are important for the future of this country; things that are vital, like making sure that we have good quality schools.

The picture the shadow minister creates of limitless opportunities for profiteering is obviously a completely false picture that could only be painted by someone who does not understand the global recession and its impact on hardworking Australians, who are very worried about their risk of unemployment—understandably so during such a global recession and globally synchronised economic downturn.

The shadow minister then makes assertions about interrelationships with state governments. We have been very clear, with very tough penalties for states that do not maintain effort in their forward estimates in school capital. We are very clear about that and we will be very vigorous with any state that does not acquit its obligations under the Building the Education Revolution guidelines.

Amazingly, the thing that the shadow minister started with was the question of plaques and recognition ceremonies.

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

Mr Pyne interjecting

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

No, you did start there. I am kind of glad that the shadow minister did because it gives me an opportunity to take the parliament through some correspondence I think is important. I will table it piece by piece. A letter of 15 May from the Hon. Julie Bishop, then the Minister for Education, Science and Training, to Lynne Kosky, then the Minister for Education and Training in Victoria. The letter, amongst other things, says:

I would like to highlight some key aspects of the recognition requirements that apply to official announcements and publicity material about funding projects, opening ceremonies in schools, and construction signs and plaques. Broadly, all publicity material, media releases, public announcements, construction signs and plaques must acknowledge the Australian government’s financial contribution. The Australian government minister must be invited to attend all school opening ceremonies and at least two months notice of such ceremonies must be given to my office. The proposed date must not be an Australian government parliamentary sitting day. The text for plaques must be sent to the Schools Liaison Officer in my parliamentary secretary’s office for approval, prior to the school opening.

She goes on to chide Lynne Kosky about the fact that a construction sign outside the Mount Erin Secondary College did not acknowledge the Australian government’s contribution to the capital works project. She goes on to chide Lynne Kosky about the fact that Jacinta Allan, a Victorian member of parliament, did not acknowledge the Australian government’s financial contribution to the Mount Erin Secondary College in a press release. She then goes on to chide Lynne Kosky that, although the member for Deakin, then a Liberal member of parliament, was invited to an opening ceremony, the then Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, was not and that was a breach of the guidelines. I table that correspondence. But it is the first in a series, because she sends a second letter of 3 October and she is quite angry by then. She says:

I will only approve funding for projects that have not previously been announced by the Victorian government in the state budget, media statements, advices to schools or any other publicity material and where the Australian government contribution has not been appropriately recognised.

And then the piece de resistance: she had a letter about the lack of compliance with recognition requirements at the Flying Fruit Fly Circus School. She is very angry by now. She is very, very angry that she has not been appropriately recognised and that the Australian government coat of arms was not displayed on the sign, while the Victorian government logo was prominently placed at the top of the sign. She was very, very angry. The Flying Fruit Fly Circus is a great circus, but the real circus in here is the opposition. (Time expired)

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not with any triumph that I rise today to speak on this matter of public importance. I take no satisfaction from the topic before us, ‘the failure of the government to properly manage the Building the Education Revolution program. I am not going to indulge in a debate on the merits of the program and the amount of borrowed money, $14.7 billion, that the government has set aside for the initiative, because that debate has been had. But the government has an obligation to the Australian public to achieve value for money in rolling out this initiative to achieve its stated objectives. I fear there are many examples of the government’s failure to properly manage the program, particularly in regional areas.

It is typical of this government that any concerns which are raised by opposition members are described—to quote from a response by the Minister for Education yesterday in question time—as ‘carping, moaning and criticism’. It is not carping, moaning and criticism; it is pointing out some faults in the program and the minister’s need to intervene before the state governments waste millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money.

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

Billions!

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Billions, even. Thank you, Member for Sturt. It is called being accountable to the parliament and being accountable to Australian taxpayers, who will be paying off the Rudd government debt for decades to come.

I like to think that I am a reasonable person, but, despite all the rhetoric we have heard today from the minister, she must understand by now that there is a problem. It relates to the value for money issue and the indecent haste with which this program is being implemented. To understand my concerns and the concerns of Gippsland builders, principals and teachers who have contacted my office, you need to consider the government’s stated objectives for this program. The minister has never been one to hide her light under a bushel. I quote from her media release yesterday announcing round 2 of the primary schools program:

The Rudd Government is unashamedly undertaking the largest school modernisation program in Australia’s history to support local jobs, stimulate every local economy and invest in important long-term infrastructure.

Yesterday in the chamber the minister said:

In particular, the Building the Education Revolution guidelines have required that, wherever it is possible, local tradespeople are engaged for the work.

Here is a newsflash for the minister: it is not quite working like that in Gippsland. The money is being shovelled out the door in such indecent haste that many schools are not getting the chance to secure the infrastructure that they want, local builders are being excluded from tendering for the work and there are fears that many of my smaller schools will only receive a relocatable building. In many instances, it is the ‘portable education revolution’—not exactly long-term infrastructure. There are not many jobs in regional areas from bolting a few portables together after they have been delivered on the back of a truck from the city.

To be fair to the minister, I know she does not trust the opposition, she does not believe the case studies that we have put forward and she certainly would not have been receiving any reports from her own backbench—they are too scared to speak out themselves. What are the chances of any regional MP in the Labor Party actually standing up for jobs in their electorates? It is just like the debate over the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. They come in here like sheep and they bleat the party lines on other issues, but when it comes to the critical issue of jobs in regional communities it is the ‘silence of the lambs’. We do not hear a peep out of them. What are the chances of regional MPs like the member for Dawson, the member of Flynn, the member for Leichhardt or the member for Page actually standing up for jobs in regional areas? It is hard to say. Rather than rely on her own backbench or take the word of opposition MPs, may I refer the minister to the editorial comments in Monday’s edition of the Bairnsdale Advertiser. Under the headline ‘Bureaucratic nonsense’, the editor of this fine journal in the electorate of Gippsland had this to say:

The education building process, already criticised on other grounds by school principals, is bureaucratic nonsense.

With one hand the government set out to provide schools that will equip students for their future employment needs. With the other hand they handicap local firms that can build the required facilities and at the same time provide much needed jobs for local school leavers. Governments are stifling local initiatives, discouraging local youth, and making a mockery of their claim to govern for all people.

What is it that has so riled the editor of the Bairnsdale Advertiser? In one instance, it is the government’s outrageous betrayal of regional students in their gap year—but we will leave that topic for another day. Another issue that is frustrating the editor of the Bairnsdale Advertiser is the same issue that led local builders to speak out in the press. They are being prevented from even tendering for projects in their local areas. The very program that is meant to be creating local jobs is not even completely open to the local building industry.

I have spoken previously on this issue, but given the lack of response from the minister’s office I will repeat the scenario for the minister’s benefit. There are well-respected building firms in Bairnsdale which have successfully completed a range of significant public building works in the past for the department of education and other government agencies. Not surprisingly, these firms were offered the opportunity to tender for three projects in Gippsland under stage 1 of the primary schools program. The only problem is that the three projects were located in Foster, San Remo and Wonthaggi. These towns are not even in the Gippsland electorate and are about two to three hours drive away for these Bairnsdale based firms. Meanwhile, there is a multimillion dollar contract in Bairnsdale that the same firms have been excluded from tendering for as part of the stage 1 process.

I ask the House: what genius in the education department in Melbourne came up with this plan? Why won’t the minister intervene to ensure that local traders have the opportunity to tender for every local project? Most people have been reluctant to speak publicly about these decisions for fear of reprisals. They do not wish to have a black mark put against their company’s name. They do not want to sound churlish or ungrateful for the investment of taxpayers’ money, but they do want to achieve the best value for money and the best possible project for their school communities. I can assure the House, though, that I have been contacted by several local builders and at least 10 school principals who have all expressed concerns with the way this program is being managed. I do accept it as a huge program being rolled out right across Australia, but that is no excuse for cutting corners and abrogating our responsibility to achieve value for money. I think the state government in Victoria in particular is leading the minister up the garden path in relation to this whole project.

A couple of builders in my electorate have spoken out to the media. Michelle Brooker and Chris Banks both told the Bairnsdale Advertiser that they had been asked to tender for these jobs three hours away while missing out on the local work, about three minutes away, that they could easily service. Also, Warren Robinson of Dynamic Windows told the local press:

We’ve been denied access to participate. For instance if a portable classroom is established at a local school, it is manufactured in Melbourne. Our industry is in crisis and the stimulus package will not help our local businesses at all.

As I said at the outset, it is not with any great sense of triumph that I raise these concerns. My primary interest is to make sure that the taxpayers of Gippsland and across Australia receive value for money under this program and that my local schools get to build the best possible facilities with the funding that has been allocated to them. People in my electorate will be paying off this debt for many years to come, of course, and they should expect maximum value in terms of support for local jobs and the quality of the facilities that are actually built. Unfortunately, in too many cases that is not what is occurring in Gippsland. I know of building firms in Sale and the Latrobe Valley which have been offered tenders in Orbost and Goongerah, three to four hours away, but the state government’s program managers have indicated they will not even be asked to tender for schools which are literally around the corner. I am worried about the round 2 programs which have been announced this week and whether Gippsland and Latrobe Valley building firms will even have the opportunity to tender for more than $20 million worth of work. It defies logic and it is completely contradictory to the minister’s comments that local jobs would be supported in every region in Australia.

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They’re certainly being supported in Dawson.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Finally the member for Dawson has found his voice—a voice he cannot find on behalf of regional jobs on any other occasion.

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Bidgood interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Dawson does not have the call.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But, because of ridiculous haste, major mistakes have been made at every step of the process. I appeal to the minister to take the time to actually get it right. The tendering is being compressed into ridiculously short time frames and builders are telling me that the template designs are being changed, leaving program managers unsure about which building is actually being offered to each school, even within a week of when the tenders are due to close. As a result, builders are inflating their prices to cover contingencies and also to meet the travel and accommodation costs of moving workers across the region. There seems to be a complete lack of understanding within the Victorian state government about the impact of the rollout of this program or the capacity of the local community to handle all the work at the same time.

We need to consider the regional implications of this program and whether the regional building industry can cope with the amount of work that is being shovelled out the door. Once you get an out-of-town firm coming into a smaller regional market to complete these jobs there is a complete distortion of the local market. You will end up with workers being taken from existing firms. It will destabilise the local workforce and profits will head straight out of town. The system that is being employed of packaging projects and then offering them for tenders is convenient for the government and may suit these ridiculous time frames but it will not deliver value for money or support local jobs. As much as there are issues with the tender process, value for money and the capacity of local builders to secure the work, there is also an issue with the facilities that are being offered.

I have mentioned already the concerns expressed to me by several smaller schools that there would be no local jobs created if all they receive is a portable building on the back of a truck. This is one of the most galling aspects of the program. It reflects the complete lack of understanding on the other side of the House of how our small communities actually work. If this money were made available to the school councils themselves they would use it to leverage off other fundraising activities and secure local traders who are sympathetic to the school’s needs. Our country communities have a great capacity to stretch a dollar further. I am certain that we would end up with better quality projects and more value for money if small schools in particular have the chance to set local priorities. Trusting local school councils to deliver local solutions to their own problems would be a far better approach than that being undertaken by the government.

Schools in my electorate which are entitled to much larger sums of money—up to $2 million and $3 million—are being pressured to accept template designs which do not meet their needs. As I have previously told the House, when the Prime Minister talks about shovel-ready it means ‘shovel the money out the door and cross your fingers that some of the projects actually hit the mark’. There should be a more strategic approach to this program. Our local communities should have more control. I urge the minister to take the time to get it right. (Time expired)

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I rise to support the minister on this matter of public importance today. I acknowledge that the shadow minister who was at the table spoke with great passion in his contribution to his MPI. It is a sad reflection, however, when that passion cannot be applied to supporting education in this country instead of carping and carrying on about stories that have been running in the national papers. They obviously provide him with criticisms of the program and direct his questions in question time.

The reality is that, in communities right across the country, the most unprecedented and significant investment in capital infrastructure in schools that we have ever seen is going on. Any member of this House who has been to their local schools over recent years would know that the first things that they want to show you are problems that they have with leaking roofs, carpeting that is no longer sufficient or safe in the provision of schooling for the children, and buildings that are inadequate to the modern needs of curriculum, and they cry out for investment in the capital that the schools need. The government, in response to the global economic crisis, determined to inject funding and activity into communities right across the country. There could be no better way to do that than through our schooling system. That is exactly what this program has set out to do.

I understand that there may be individual cases where members would have concerns about how that was being applied. Contrary to the member for Gippsland’s contribution just then, there are many members in this House who have talked to their local schools and local builders and have worked to ensure that the program actually works on the ground in the way intended. Indeed, in my own area, the member for Throsby and I, the moment that an overarching contractor was appointed, arranged to meet with him. We talked to him about our expectation of local work being provided to support jobs in our region. We have a region under a great deal of stress due to the decisions of Pacific Brands and the downturn’s impact on the steel and coal industries. So, clearly like any member of this House and as the member for Gippsland claims in his speech, we have a concern about local jobs.

We do not come in here and carp about problems; we actually met with the overarching contractor, made our expectations clear, got commitments from him about the employment of apprentices and Indigenous people in that job creation process and got commitments from him to report back to us about the local contractors that were allocated work. Indeed, only recently he has indicated to us that he has had 350 applications of interest from local builders in our region to work on these projects. That is a tremendous outcome. It is the sort of program rolling out across the nation that one would think local members would be pleased to see happening in their local area. The program not only supports local jobs but also supports the employment of apprentices and trainees at a time when their opportunities are under severe threat. But of course, no, we do not hear any of that from the other side. Not surprisingly, given the construct of this MPI and the opposition’s concern about the management of the program, they did not even support the program in the first place.

Members opposite have talked about some of the guidelines around the rollout of this program. I forgive the member for Gippsland because he was not here in the previous parliament, but if he had been I hope he would have been honest enough in today’s contribution to recognise the fact that there were schools in my area that had to unveil flag poles and plaques for Investing in our Schools projects that were mortally embarrassed by the fact that they could not even invite me to attend those particular events because the Liberal senator had to be invited.

I am a fair person. I think it is reasonable that if the federal government has a program that it is funding—which this side of the House did not vote against, unlike this current program—a government member comes along and does the officiating. I would have thought that, as the local member, out of respect to the people who elected me, there would not have been a problem with at least inviting me to come along and participate, but that was prohibited under its program. I say to those opposite that, if they are keen to be a part of this program, it would have been nice, firstly, for them to have voted for it—but we will let that pass—and, secondly, that they did something constructive such as talk to the overarching contractors, talk to the local school authorities, make it clear what the intention of the program is and what they expect to get out of it and support it rolling out. But, not surprisingly, instead of that we get opportunism. Those opposite come into this place picking the problems that may arise and indicating that this is somehow a massive failure of the largest investment that our schooling system has seen in anybody’s lifetime.

I am very passionate about the schooling we provide for our young people. I think a very important part of that is the environment you provide for children to attend schools in. If you send kids to schools that are run down, that are getting dilapidated, that have an unattractive environment to be in, you as a community are sending a message to them about how you value that education. In this country, we saw a massive building program of new schools to deal with the baby boomer generation. Not surprisingly, given that that rollout occurred in the 1950s and 1960s, we are now seeing a massive demand on maintenance and extension requirements in our schooling system. We are being part of the solution to that demand. We are ensuring through this program that our schools provide environments that are welcoming and conducive to a modern curriculum and that they are well provided with technology that best positions our young people to get the education they will need for their future. It would be really nice for once to see the passion of those opposite applied to encouraging and supporting this sort of commitment and prioritising of education for our young people rather than the sort of negativity that we consistently see about these programs.

The member for Gippsland has a concern about whether those on this side of the House speak up, so I am going to speak up. In my area, I have 51 primary schools and 11 high schools and I acknowledge that in my area, under the first round of the National School Pride Program, just over $4 million went into those schools for a range of maintenance and upgrade programs, which was very welcome. Under the second round, just under $4.5 million went into my local schools, which was also very welcome. Even better, under Primary Schools for the 21st Century, there was just under $28 million in the first round and nearly $47 million in the second round. Unprecedented amounts of money are being spent in schools in my area. It eclipses the Investing in Our Schools Program that those on the other side squealed so loudly about when we took government. Their own program was a three-year program that had run out and they were upset that we were not renewing it. I say to them that if they were so concerned about that program not being renewed they should have jumped with glee when both the National School Pride Program and Primary Schools of the 21st Century were put in place. Certainly, that is the reaction in my own area.

For the information of the member for Gippsland, since he wanted to quote some of his local constituents in the media, can I just quote Sharon and Michael. They do not actually live in my local area; they live in Woronora which is, I think, in the member for Cook’s seat. They sent me an email which says:

Dear Sharon,

Yesterday, my wife and I attended our grandson’s open day at Coledale public school. It is a very small school with only four or five classrooms, a library about the size of your average kitchen, a staffroom the size of a bathroom for five or six teachers. Sick bay is a fold-up bed in the corridor. During the assembly, the headmistress, Mrs Bradley, was proud to announce that as a result of the Rudd government’s stimulus package, Coledale public school will have a new, freestanding library constructed before this Christmas. This will provide additional space in the existing building for a proper sick bay and improvements to the staffroom. Only weeks after the announcement of stage three of the stimulus package, the builders, surveyors et cetera have already been on site and plans approved. Not only jobs for local tradies but the kids will now have a proper library, the most important source of information in every learning institution and community.

Good on you, Sharon, and thank you Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd.

That is the reality; that is what is happening in our communities under this program. (Time expired)

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would gently remind the honourable member that the correct means of referring to male occupants of the chair who are not the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker is as Mr Deputy Speaker. If it happens to be a female deputy speaker, one refers to her as Madam Deputy Speaker.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the shadow minister, the member for Sturt, said, no-one begrudges schools improving their facilities. However, with a record debt of $318 billion and with this particular program costing $14.7 billion, it is certainly our role on this side of the House to ensure that every one of those taxpayer dollars is spent extremely wisely and to the extent that they were meant. The fact that we have waste and mismanagement in this program has been highlighted by the members speaking prior to me. As I said, these are $14.7 billion of taxpayer funds, and we have a very clear responsibility to taxpayers. One example of the mismanagement we have seen in the past, which was highlighted earlier, is the Computers in Schools Program. The computers are still in boxes. The original announcement included no funding for cabling, installation, staff training or ongoing electricity costs. The program delivered only part of the cost for those computers in schools. This came at a huge cost to state governments and schools alike. There are new schools in my electorate that cannot and do not qualify for that particular program, even though they have a 1:5 ratio of computers to students, far below the 1:2 ratio the government committed to. But, of course, under the government guidelines they are ineligible for funding under the program.

Last week, I was visited by two principals who are very concerned about the conditions of that particular program and their exclusion from it. The condition of the Building the Education Revolution which prevents comments from principals and boards is of great concern, particularly for regional areas. I can certainly understand why the shadow minister has requested the Attorney-General to investigate the government’s taxpayer funded expenditure on this program. I am also very concerned, as is the member beside me, the member for Gippsland, about jobs for regional local businesses—a critical part of this, as the member expressed very succinctly. We heard today in the House how a builder was a contender for a BER project three hours from his location but not for a project three minutes away. This is one simple example of the waste and mismanagement.

One of the Prime Minister’s own infrastructure advisers has slammed this program. Schools in some areas that need new classrooms have been told they have to build a standard school hall even when the school already has one. Yesterday in question time we heard the minister concede that funds could be spent on air conditioning buildings being constructed but not on upgrading existing buildings—a very significant issue for remote and regional schools, schools which we on this side of the House understand very well and schools which would have qualified under the coalition’s Investing in Our Schools Program.

When Building the Education Revolution was announced, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister promised that every Australian school would be eligible for the funding, which would be used for maintenance and renewal of school buildings and minor building work, but, as we know, that is not what is happening. Many schools, as we keep hearing, are encountering problems with the program. Schools are being forced to direct funds towards projects that do not address their needs or those of their area, nor improve the education standards of their students. We have noticed an article in the Australian talking about an Adelaide school whose children have to finish early in summer because they need air conditioning. That school is precluded from achieving that by this program—a very real issue if you are in one of those schools.

We are hearing complaints from school boards that they cannot negotiate their own deals and appoint their own tradesmen, another issue highlighted by the member for Gippsland. And not allowing schools to modify designs for their individual local needs or to appoint their own local contracts really compromises the benefits in those local and regional areas. The minister has to redress these issues. Many schools will receive what they do not need—a demountable, from the back of a truck, with a design which has no relevance to the school’s needs. Scrutiny by those on this side of the House of a $14.7 billion taxpayer funded program is appropriate. I commend the shadow minister for recommending this matter to the Attorney-General for further scrutiny.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot believe the hypocrisy of those opposite when it comes to the accountability for taxpayers’ dollars. We can see clearly on the dispatch box in front of me two inches of Auditor-General’s reports about the rorts those opposite were responsible for under the Regional Partnerships program. They went on forever and ever. We heard about companies which went bust and kept the money. We heard about money going into National Party seats. Those rorts went on and on and the lack of accountability for taxpayers’ money was just unbelievable.

I also want to talk about the shadow minister for education’s comments during this MPI and during the last few question times. It has been made very clear by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education that the shadow minister has one policy on education—that is, to spend less. We have called on the opposition to come into this House to tell us which schools they think do not deserve money under Building the Education Revolution. Clearly, they believe that fewer schools should be receiving money, that schools already have adequate facilities. In my electorate of Franklin, I know that that is not the case. I have been around virtually every school in my electorate. I have contacted every school more than once to talk to them about projects under Building the Education Revolution. I have talked to school communities, to parents and friends and to principals about the investment this government is making in the largest school modernisation program in Australia’s history. All the principals and all the parents and friends I talk to in the electorate of Franklin say one thing about Building the Education Revolution—that it is fantastic. They cannot spend the money fast enough.

Under the National School Pride Program one of my schools has already substantially undertaken the work. I have heard from tradesmen in my electorate. In fact, in the last few weeks there was a four-page spread in our local newspaper from Mitre 10 saying that they will be opening a new trade centre due to the federal government’s stimulus National Building and Jobs Plan. I welcome that new centre. My office contacted the company and I am going to have a talk to them about their investment, which is a direct result of this government’s investment in Building the Education Revolution and in other national-building investments going on in Franklin.

Those opposite show unbelievable hypocrisy when they nitpick, whinge and moan about Building the Education Revolution and how it is being implemented when they voted against it. They seem to forget there is currently a global financial crisis. They seem to forget that this program is about stimulating local economies and providing jobs in rural and regional areas right across this nation. To say that the government do not know and that we have not spoken to people in our electorate is absolutely untrue. Every member I know on this side of the House has been contacting their schools and principals, and their state governments, to ensure that this money has been delivered as was intended—that is, as quickly as possible while supporting local jobs. That is what is happening in my electorate of Franklin, in Tasmania and around the nation.

This government is serious about the stimulating effect the Building the Education Revolution is supposed to be having—and certainly is having in my electorate and in other electorates around the country. I am really pleased and proud to be supporting the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Education, today on Building the Education Revolution and to be talking about what a wonderful investment in local schools it is. I certainly support it. I know my local communities support it, my principals support it, local school communities support it and the parents and friends support it. Certainly, the architects, the tradesmen and the other building and project people involved in the rollout of Building the Education Revolution all support it. It is a large program. With over 9,500 schools across the country and 23,000 projects in schools, of course there are going to be some minor hiccups along the way. Anybody who has ever renovated a home knows that nothing goes perfectly all of the time.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 4.53 pm, the time for discussion on this matter has concluded.