Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving immediately the following censure motion:This House censures the Deputy Prime Minister for her inept management of the $16.2 billion school halls funding programme which has been plagued by repeated examples of waste and mismanagement culminating in a $1.7 billion dollar blow-out in the Primary Schools for the 21st Century component, exposing it as little more than a cynical political attempt to promote the Deputy Prime Minister and the Rudd Government at the taxpayers’ expense and in particular for:

(1)

rolling over to State Governments by allowing them to “cream off” so-called project management charges which divert funds from schools;

(2)

joining forces with her state counterparts to demand schools use their preferred contractor mates, rather than local tradespeople;

(3)

bullying schools to accept mass produced demountables and “one size fits all” projects, rather than what local communities want, with the threat that if they speak out, they will get nothing;

(4)

ignoring advice from Principals, education experts, the Education Union, building firms, planning experts, and the Opposition about how to improve this program;

(5)

providing funding for projects in schools that are closing;

(6)

designing a program that effectively treats public and non-government schools very differently: allowing non-government schools the flexibility to build the projects they want or need, while government schools are forced to work within the rigid and incompetent confines of State bureaucracies;

(7)

forcing all schools in Australia to display taxpayer-funded signs which have been declared political advertisements for the Government by the Australian Electoral Commissioner;

(8)

being the first in line to take credit for any good news stories, but refusing to take responsibility for the litany of problems, or for the waste and mismanagement of such an extraordinary amount of taxpayers’ borrowed money; and

(9)

treating this Parliament and the Australian taxpayer with contempt by failing to take responsibility for this debacle and give the frank answers demanded of a Minister in charge of a multi-billion dollar programme.

In any other government at any other time in our history, a $1.7 billion blow-out in the cost of a major public spending program would be regarded rightly as an unforgivable dereliction of duty by the responsible minister in the conduct of their portfolio, but not this government and certainly not this minister.

This Deputy Prime Minister is scornful of all or any scrutiny. She is disdainful of all or any attempts to hold her to account for the spectacular waste and mismanagement occurring under her watch. Rather than answer legitimate questions—51 of them—about the debacle she calls her Primary Schools for the 21st Century, she has come into this House on a daily basis and dismissed all scrutiny of this program as nitpicking and has accused the opposition of having a lack of perspective. Nitpicking! This is a minister who has taken a $14.7 billion commitment of borrowed money and rolled it out with such indecent haste and with such staggering and wasteful incompetence that it has turned into a public policy fiasco that will now cost Australian taxpayers $16.2 billion.

Not only is this program running away over its projected cost, it is a one-size-fits-all program that ignores the pleas from school communities to give them the buildings and the facilities they actually want and need. Every day, more and more principals and parents feel compelled to come forward with horror stories of faceless bureaucrats imposing on them buildings that cost more than they should and that do nothing to address their needs. As each day passes, we see the squandering of hundreds of millions upon hundreds of millions of dollars in money borrowed from future generations. Every day, this Deputy Prime Minister walks into parliament and refuses point blank to answer questions about the failings in her portfolio.

We have never seen a Deputy Prime Minister more willing to treat this parliament and the Australian taxpayer with such contempt by refusing to answer for her mismanagement, and it is a mismanagement which we warned the government about. Back in February when they proposed this school hall program, when the ‘Julia Gillard Memorial Assembly Hall Program’ was rolled out and announced in this House, we said that we had very grave doubts about the capacity of the government to spend $14 billion—in the days when it was only $14 billion—on school halls through state governments in two years. We proposed instead a different approach that reflected the difference in our values, because the difference between us and Labor is that Labor believes government knows best. The Julia Gillard memorial assembly hall is what you need whether you know it or not—that is the message from the Deputy Prime Minister.

We proposed a $3 billion schools stimulus program based on the Investing in Our Schools program, which would have reached out to school communities and said to them, as our program did when we were in government, ‘What do you need? What do you want? What is the project, the building, the renovation, the equipment that you need? Let us know what it is and we will support it.’ If the government had taken that counsel—and it is not too late for them to take that counsel—then they would at least ensure they would actually have school projects being built that represent what the schools need.

Today we have heard about the Colbinabbin Primary School. The Deputy Prime Minister dismissed that with contempt. That is just a bit of nitpicking, apparently. The President of the School Council, Ramon Rathjen, said:

The choices regarding the expenditure of BER funds have been virtually nonexistent as the one-size-fits-all approach has not satisfied our particular needs.

He went on to say:

We feel obliged to raise our concern in order that funds do deliver value for money.

At Colbinabbin, the school community is concerned about delivering value for taxpayers’ money, but the Deputy Prime Minister is not. What does that say about the values of this government? The parents and citizens of a small school in rural Australia want to get value for money. They want to see the government delivering value for money. They want to see expenditure on projects that are really needed. The Deputy Prime Minister does not care. She dismisses it as nitpicking and accuses us, and no doubt the P&C at Colbinabbin, of having a lack of perspective.

Then we have heard today also of the bizarre funding saga at the Annangrove Public School. Having received an $850,000 grant, the school is told they are going to get a library. However, they already have a library that they are more than happy with. The school asked for a hall and a library was the least desired option offered to them by the education department. In other words, they got the thing they wanted the least.

It gets worse. The library they are getting is essentially a demountable. In February, the New South Wales Department of Education and Training was costing these libraries at $285,000—that is what it said they cost. They are now being charged $727,000 for a library they did not want and do not need—a $442,000 mark-up in seven months. Where has that money gone to? Does the Deputy Prime Minister care? She does not care. She says that is just nit-picking. The school cares; the school is concerned; the citizens of Australia—the taxpayers of Australia—are concerned about this.

So we have seen right through this program the inevitable consequence of Labor’s wasteful, hasty, reckless borrowing and spending. They are spending so much money in such a rush that they are wasting it and imposing on schools facilities they neither want nor need. And who benefits from it? Nobody benefits but the Deputy Prime Minister herself. Whether the school hall is wanted or needed or not, there will be a big sign imposed by law until March 2011 proclaiming the greatness of the deputy dear leader herself. This is a disgraceful waste of public funds and it reflects an indifference to recognising the importance of managing our public finances in the public interest.

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

Is the motion seconded?

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

I second the motion, Mr Speaker. This suspension of standing orders should be carried because this part-time Minister for Education deserves the censure of the House, not least because of the waste and mismanagement over which she has presided since February this year, but primarily by the parliament of Australia because of her utter inability and her refusal to be responsible and accountable for the decisions being made to spend $16.2 billion of taxpayers’ money.

She has been asked 51 questions in this House about examples of waste in Building the Education Revolution. She claims that she has received 49 complaints. This is of a piece with the spin that we always get from this government because, at the same time, the Deputy Prime Minister says that the federal government is not responsible for the spending of the money. It is block grant authorities; it is state and territory governments. So, of course, the complaints would have largely gone to the block grant authorities and the state and territory governments. But yet again, this is the spin you expect from the government.

Today she tried to claim that I had said we had 60 complaints in my office. I checked with my staff. We said that we had 60 complaints in our hands alone yesterday. That does not include the hundreds of complaints, the hundreds of concerns, we have received from parents and citizens, from principals, from teachers—from ordinary Australians across Australia—since February. They have come to us mostly anonymously because, as somebody said to me, ‘This government has a mean streak a mile wide.’ This is a vindictive government, an intimidatory government. The guidelines themselves require that principals and parents and citizens’ chairs do not speak out for fear of losing their funding. The Victorian and Queensland governments have made that absolutely clear: if schools speak out, they will lose their money.

Most of the concerns we have received have come via emails, phone calls and letters but they are too concerned about the funding going to their schools and being ripped away from them, even though they may not want the ‘Julia Gillard Memorial School Hall’ being imposed on them, because they know how vindictive and how intimidating this government is. It is not a defence for the minister to say that she has had 49 complaints.

Over the last six months, this opposition has raised issues: about profiteering; about state skimming; about project management costs—$565,000 for six months’ work; about unwanted projects when schools had plans already in place for things they actually wanted; about the fact that public schools have no choice about what they get and private schools are spending the money on things that they want; about uncontrolled spending, as you have heard today about the Annangrove School, which is just another example, and we have raised many; about senseless edicts from bureaucrats, like moving a hall 3.8 metres, which wastes $60,000; about hard-earned money that school communities have raised through lotteries, raffles and cake stalls and stupid edicts from bureaucrats; about one-child schools receiving $250,000; about one classroom costing at least $850,000; about grants going to schools that are closing; about priority being given to $3.8 million for display signs and $3.5 million for plaques; and, finally, about the $1.7 billion blowout in the program, taking money from social housing and from science and language laboratories in needy schools—at least 146 across the country—in order to prop up the ego of the Deputy Prime Minister, who can never be wrong, who can never take responsibility, who will never be accountable and who will never answer a question.

This minister is like the air stewardess on Flying High, or the scout cub leader on Friday the 13th or—for those who do not understand those movies—the captain of the Titanic saying: ‘Climb on board. Everything’s going really well.’ It is only taxpayers’ money! There is nothing to worry about; it is all perfectly safe. But, in fact, this is taxpayers’ money, Deputy Prime Minister. It is $16.2 billion. It is supposed to be the flagship of the government’s spending and it is a shambles. It is a shemozzle and you should be censured by the House for your failure to keep this program under control.

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

I think it falls to me to introduce a thing called facts into this debate. I am not surprised that the Titanic came to the mind of the shadow minister when he gave his contribution because, with this motion to suspend standing orders, raised against the backdrop of, I think, the flattest question time that we have seen in many a long day from the opposition, what we have in fact seen today is the leader of a divided party just drowning. He is not even waving; he is just drowning. It is an embarrassing performance from the opposition. Let us remember that, at the start of this parliamentary fortnight, the opposition were out backgrounding, trying to capture any journalist they could find to write about their fiery question time attacks and the great assault that they were going to lead on Building the Education Revolution and on this government. But, as we move out of this parliamentary fortnight, what have we seen? We have seen the media spotlight on the poor tactics of the opposition and we have seen newspapers editorialising against the performance of the Manager of Opposition Business.

As this parliamentary fortnight draws to a close, let me assure the House that my greatest risk of injury in relation to Building the Education Revolution is getting knocked over at a local school by a Liberal member who wants to get in the photo shot and push me out of the way. That is my greatest risk of injury in relation to Building the Education Revolution. I certainly cannot afford to wear high heels when I go to local schools; I need plenty of traction on the ground, as they thump and buff at me to get in the shot. But of course whilst they conduct themselves like that out in their electorates, when they come into federal parliament and into federal parliament alone—it is only in this green chamber; only in this bubble—they criticise Building the Education Revolution. Back at home, they cannot wait to get in the shot. They then walk into this parliament and make criticisms. The shadow minister puffs himself up and gets red in the face when all these criticisms roll out. But of course when we look at these criticisms, held up to the light, the opposition’s criticisms have, overwhelmingly, turned to dust. Most particularly, the criticisms made by the shadow minister himself have turned to dust.

With respect to the criticism about Berridale—here he is with his ‘per square metre’ facts and figures—we actually went and had a look at that and, no, it was not true. Then the member for Sturt is in the chamber saying that I gave a solemn promise to the member for Bradfield to visit one of his schools and I have not honoured that promise and I have not got back to him—and, of course, when we hold that criticism up to the light, it is just not true.

Sometimes when allegations are raised we ask members if they will forward some evidence to help us investigate them. For example, we did that with the member for Mayo. He came back and said he would not forward the evidence. Then, of course, we have the member for Mitchell, who had the temerity to get back up on his feet today. The last allegation he raised in this parliament was simply not true. Then the member for Cook—who, I think, has been excluded from the parliament today for inappropriate conduct—raised an issue about Cecil Hills school and a comparison with another school building. When we held that up to the light, it was just not true. We had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in here talking about administrative fees in the Northern Territory. We held that up to the light and it was just not true.

Members opposite might come in here with their litany of allegations, but if they are going to make allegations in this parliament then they need to actually show some evidence in relation to those allegations. Time after time after time, they have failed that test. They have made a series of false claims about Building the Education Revolution. They have made claims about cost blow-outs. The last schools program that required a government to go back to budget and get more money to fund it because of cost blow-outs was the Howard government’s Investing in Our Schools program. Then the opposition get a newspaper to publicise claims that they have broken down the number of science and language centres in schools in Labor seats versus non-Labor seats and that they found a deep and dark conspiracy distorting, apparently, away from coalition held seats. But when that claim is looked at objectively it is, of course, not true. The number of science and language centres in Labor seats, as a percentage, is actually less than the number of seats that are held in the House.

But perhaps the most breathtaking denial of the opposition about all of this—which really makes you have to wonder about how out of touch they are not only about the values and aspirations of ordinary Australians but also about a simple thing called reality—is that the Leader of the Opposition is now trying to write history backwards and say that the position of the opposition all along on Building the Education Revolution was that it was a damn fine idea, but they were always worried about the implementation and the rollout of it. Well, Leader of the Opposition, I do not know whether the stress of your job and the divisions in your party room are playing tricks with your memory, but that is simply not true. You marched into this parliament and, when asked to vote for the biggest school modernisation program in the nation’s history and asked to vote for supporting jobs in Australia in every community around the country during the days of a global recession, you did not talk about implementation risks—you simply said no. You sat on those seats over there and you voted no.

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

Order! The minister should refer her remarks through the chair.

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

The opposition voted no in the divisions on school stimulus, they voted no in the divisions on economic stimulus and, when asked to support schools around the country, they sat on those seats over there and they just said ‘No.’ Of course, they have sought to cover up that ‘No’ ever since. They seek to cover up in their electorates by jumping in the shot and pretending they are associated with the project. They seek to cover up by saying, from time to time, ‘It’s all waste,’ and then on other days they say, ‘Some of it’s waste.’ On some days they say, ‘We’re opposed to all of it,’ and then on other days they say, ‘We would have run a smaller program.’ At some point, they have to come into this parliament and answer the very simple question: ‘Given you just voted no, if the position of the opposition is not simply a blanket no to all of this funding then how much of this funding would you have delivered as a government?’

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hockey interjecting

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

What are the names of the schools who would have missed out under the program that would have been run by this opposition if they had been in government? They are saying now they would have run a smaller program. They are bandying figures around now like $3 billion. If it would have been a $3 billion program, they should produce the names of the thousands of schools that would have missed out if they had been the government. No-one will take them seriously on this point until they do.

The shadow Treasurer is wont to wander around the media and compare this campaign to the campaign about Australian workplace agreements and the raising of individual examples in this parliament. I say to the shadow Treasurer: the problem with that perspective is that, when we were campaigning against AWAs, we knew where we stood on them. We knew what we would have done if we had been the government, and we had a fair work policy. The one thing the opposition does not know on Building the Education Revolution is where it stands on it because it does not want to tell the truth about which schools would have missed out.

I conclude by saying that people around the country who support education support this program. If you ask Therese Temby, the Chair of the National Catholic Education Commission, she will say she supports it and that it is being delivered well. If you ask Bill Daniels, the Executive Director of the Independent Schools Council, he will say he supports it and that it is being delivered well. If you ask school communities around Australia, they will say they are delighted by it. Yes, in a program of this size and scale there are going to be the occasional problems. But the shadow minister, when put to the test, is in the media today saying he has 60 complaints. That is a complaint rate of 0.25 per cent in the biggest school modernisation program in the nation’s history, which is being delivered urgently in order to support jobs. I know the Leader of the Opposition has a difficult life and I know the opposition is fundamentally divided on this, but this has really been pathetic by the opposition. (Time expired)

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Turnbull’s) be agreed to.