Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to again draw the parliament’s attention to the difficulties that the Langwarrin Primary School is facing in being fitted up with a Building the Education Revolution building that is not what it is seeking and in being completely ignored by the bureaucracy and the Labor governments that are overseeing this program. I also put on record my frustration and extreme disappointment at—having raised these concerns in the parliament and having been given assurances from the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Education of her interest in and willingness to engage on these concerns—having received possibly the most churlish, juvenile reply that I have seen in 13½ or 14 years in response to legitimate community concerns I have raised in this place. I raised it in good faith. I asked the question with courtesy and respect. I recognise the responsibilities that the minister has. She—in her saccharine-sweet way—reassured the parliament that of course she was interested in consultation. What did I get out of that? Absolutely nothing. I got just a churlish, juvenile, politically motivated letter that showed no interest in the concerns of the Langwarrin school community and no interest in good value for money.

As I have said over and over again, the Building the Education Revolution program has funding available and that funding needs to be spent wisely. Those opposite in the Labor Party are just spraying some money around. They are the BS of Australian politics—that is, the big spenders of Australian politics. They are not interested in value for money, and this is an example. I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister will put on the plaque in the Langwarrin Primary School that she forced that project on that school community when the school community had pointed out what they could have done with just some of that money to implement their master plan, to give it what it needs. Instead, they are being forced to demolish part of a building that is ripe for refurbishment. If you were at all interested in sustainability, why would you demolish a building just to build another one? They could refurbish that perfectly good building. Schools have been told to take one of these McMac style template projects. Do not ever think about changing anything! Heaven forbid. Do not make it relevant and adapt it to the school’s needs! Do not try and blend it in with the facilities that are there! No, no. Take it or leave it. Kim Jong-il would be impressed with the way this program is being handled.

The school community are faced with having to demolish a building that is ripe for refurbishment and that could be demolished at a cost-effective price. They are asking for one of the template half-court buildings and they are being told they cannot have that. Moreover, there are uncertainties and additional costs relating to the multimedia centre that needs to be removed and relocated. They are unclear about how to handle the enormous disruption to the school. They are having a building design forced on them because the project managers have said that the Rudd Labor government wants the buildings to be visible from the road. The profile of this project is more important than the education of these primary school kids. They are having to push this building into a place where it should not be and to demolish rooms that are perfectly functional and suitable for refurbishment. But here is the clanger. Do you know what they are going to end up with? They are going to have permanently plumbed portable dunnies. This is the primary school of the 21st century federal Labor style. They are going to have a building demanded by Kevin and loos delivered by Kenny. That is what we are going to have. We are going to have a primary school for the 21st century with permanently plumbed portable dunnies, as a requirement of the project being forced on this community.

We have this clear example. If the Deputy Prime Minister could be even remotely sincere and in keeping with her saccharine-sweet assurances to the parliament that she is even remotely interested in this school community’s interest, she could fix this. She could get value for money. She could get change for the Australian public. She would be able to see that the outcome would be in keeping with what the school community seeks. That is what she could do. She could lift a finger and do something about value for money and genuine consultation.

We hear a lot from Labor about good-faith bargaining in industrial relations. In my electorate, that is a union coming in and telling an employer: ‘You can’t have anyone represent you. We demand to talk to you in the spirit of good-faith bargaining.’ What about some good-faith consultation? What about some genuine engagement? We have other examples here. We have had a primary school which for many years has had a population of over 150 but for 10 days in about four years it slipped under and went into a different category. Is the minister interested in addressing that and having funding that reflects the genuine population? We have parents in Mornington Park Primary School saying this money could surely be used more wisely. I commend Langwarrin Primary School for their efforts. I have a petition and letters from parents wanting a better outcome from this money piling up. This is a lazy, big-spending government, and they should be focused on getting— (Time expired)