Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

There is one thing that has been put so far during this MPI debate that I agree with: we need some more accurate perspective. To date, only 24 schools have raised issues directly with the national coordinator. Most of these, after discussion, have reached resolution. More generally, there are procedures in place to assist in resolving any disagreements between the education authorities and a school. The examples raised by the opposition demonstrate that these procedures are effective. Let us go to the one—the only one—that has been raised whilst I have been in the chamber during this debate: the Berwick Lodge Primary School. The opposition asks about a story in the Australian relating to Berwick Lodge Primary School as an example of a school where there were some implementation issues. No-one argues against that. However, a process of consultation was undertaken in line with the guidelines. Indeed, the member for La Trobe wrote to the Minister for Education after this consultation had been undertaken stating:

Minister, you resolved this matter for Berwick Lodge Primary recently, which I was very pleased about.

How is it we can have the Liberal Party’s local member saying to the minister that he is very pleased he had resolved this, and yet the opposition regurgitate this case time and time again? The real reason for that is that they lack any examples of genuine problems to demonstrate the case they are trying to run.

This leads us back to the much broader perspective here. For an opposition that claim we do not have enough time in the chamber to deal with the legislation that we have in front of us—as they did this morning—I am astounded at the quality of the urgency motions that are coming forward. Last week, we had the one about youth allowance, and a resolution that the whole thing is a major catastrophe and is falling apart. When you looked at it more closely, it was around some issues with respect to students who may have chosen to undertake a gap year—hardly the perspective that was pumped forward in the nature of the urgency motion. In that debate, Senator Mason spoke briefly on that question but then suddenly went over to the Building the Education Revolution. He could not even speak on the motion in front of him for long; he had to go over to this matter. He is right in one thing that he said this morning: he is going on and on about this. If you look at questions during question time in the chamber and at other cases such as the questions we all went through in estimates, the problem for Senator Mason is that those of us who are in any way informed on these issues know the degree of regurgitation of resolved cases that is going on here, of which Berwick Lodge is probably the best example. For anyone to quote, in support of their prime case, a principal in relation to a process that has now been resolved is astounding. If I hear it one more time I will really seriously wonder at the capacity of the opposition to demonstrate any case at all.

But let us go back to the bigger picture that Senator Humphries was so keen to avoid. The $14.7 million Building the Education Revolution is a massive package that aims to address two urgent needs. The main point is one that my colleagues opposite seem to be trying desperately to avoid. I would say, in fact, that they are pretty much in denial. We are trying to support jobs in the face of the global financial crisis. But in those opposite we still have the global financial crisis deniers. If you listened to Senator Humphries a moment ago, you would not understand that we are talking about trying to get this Building the Education Revolution funding out in a way which will ensure projects commence as quickly as possible. That is why we are building projects in the fashion that we have—because it is critical to our economy to get this activity happening as quickly as possible. We are using this funding and building infrastructure to invest in education to boost tomorrow’s productivity. That is the other key urgent need. We need to enhance Australia’s education systems to boost our future productivity. The government has undertaken decisive action in relation to these two needs. Indeed, the scale of its response is unprecedented. But do not forget: the opposition has opposed this package in its entirety, as indeed it opposed any action in relation to the global financial crisis. We had the shadow Treasurer at the time saying we should just wait and see—let the global financial crisis wash over us and wait and see—rather than act in any way that could help diminish its impact on Australia and Australian jobs or that could increase our capacity to move towards recovery as soon as possible.

The delivery of the Building the Education Revolution package is already well underway. This satisfies the need for timely action. To date, the BER has funded over 20,000 infrastructure projects valued at over $10.45 billion. In the face of this action, which is already providing a significant employment boost, the opposition have adopted a purely negative stance. They oppose everything the government has done, yet they have no education policy of their own. But, before dealing with some of the opposition’s claims in detail, it is important to note that the Building the Education Revolution guidelines clearly specify that, where possible, local tradespeople will be engaged in construction of each project, that preference will be given to businesses that have demonstrated a commitment to adding or retaining trainees and apprentices and that, where possible, new buildings and refurbishments should incorporate sustainable building principles and be designed to maximise energy efficiency.

There are three areas where I could talk about the claims that the opposition has been running against Building the Education Revolution. The first pertains to cost overruns. The second, which we were talking about before in relation to Berwick Lodge, is where there has been a difference between the school’s request and what Building the Education Revolution provides. The third is where the funding goes in terms of school amalgamations.

Let us deal first with the cost overruns. The first claim that the opposition makes is that there have been cost overruns or examples of inefficiency. For example, last week the opposition asked a question without notice in relation to Hastings Public School in New South Wales. This too, I note in passing, was part of the debate here earlier. But let us look at the facts again. This school received $400,000 for a covered outdoor learning centre. The opposition claimed that the school built a similar covered area for $40,000 in 2003. Firstly, as was pointed out by the minister, the earlier project at Hastings Public School cost $80,000, not $40,000; that is, it was $40,000 from the government and $40,000 from the parents committee. Secondly, and most importantly, the current funding for Hastings Public School is for a significant building with a solid roof. It also includes an amphitheatre, seating and a sound system to facilitate school assemblies and performances and science and artworks bases. Clearly the comparison here is inappropriate.

This raises a broader question about the spurious comparisons being made by the opposition. Many of the quotes used by the opposition are per metre construction quotes. But, as everyone knows, there is a difference between the lock-up figure for a building and the fit-for-purpose cost. The latter includes the full fit-out and naturally is higher. That is the case even without looking at the other issues, such as were raised before by Senator Marshall, which arose in estimates. We are talking about basic things in infrastructure for our children such as insulation and proper land fit-out and other things necessary before you construct. Let me look at another example. A kitchen quote at the lock-up stage would not include sinks and the electrical components. In the case of schools, the fit-out costs include things such as interactive whiteboards in classrooms, seating and sound systems in school halls and so on. These additional features are built into the cost.

Given that the opposition has made a number of claims about the cost of various projects, it is worth spelling out the nature of the tender process. It is a very robust process that is achieving value for money. Initial estimates of project costs are based on the experience of state and territory and block grant education authorities. This is the best practice of initial estimates given the vast experience of these authorities in delivering projects. Following this initial estimate, tenders are sought for managing contractors. Once appointed, these managing contractors will hire subcontractors. Quotes or tenders are then sought for individual projects. These quotes will allow some money for contingencies. This is standard practice. Once quotes are finalised, schools may find that they have money left over. Again, this was discussed in Senate estimates. If this is the case, they can seek a project variation from the Commonwealth. In addition, there may be money left over once the situation in relation to contingencies has become clearer. Where that is the case, consultation will occur with school principals to determine how those funds can be used either to enhance the original project or add an additional project. Building the Education Revolution is about achieving value for money, and all the opposition can do is twist old reports.

Let us go back to this point about the difference between a school’s request and what Building the Education Revolution provides. The opposition has raised a number of situations where there is a disagreement between the school and the education authority on the scope of the project to be funded. Given the scope of this package and the speed with which it is being implemented because of the global financial crisis, some disputes in relation to the details of the implementation are to be expected. The key point is that the government has in place procedures to manage and resolve these situations. In case and case again, once you look at the facts of the matter these procedures are working.

Finally, with respect to amalgamations, another issue raised by the opposition is the situation in which a school is closing or amalgamating with another school. As the Building the Education Revolution guidelines make clear, for planned amalgamations indicative funding for the school to be merged can be combined and used for capital or refurbishments in the new school. Again I respond to some spurious examples raised by the opposition, for instance the Australian reporting from 12 June that Inala West State School, which is amalgamating with Inala State School, would be receiving $125,000 for classroom upgrades. The fact is that 100 per cent of the funding will go to Inala State School for classroom upgrades. The continuing school is the Inala State School, and that will get the benefit of that funding. The Australian reported on 12 June that Richlands State School, which is amalgamating with Richlands East State School, will get $75,000 for classroom upgrades. The fact is that 100 per cent of the funding will go to Richlands East State School for classroom upgrades. This is the continuing school. So the examples go on.

Let me conclude by highlighting again that Building the Education Revolution is the largest single investment in education this nation has ever seen. Senator Humphries can highlight that spending in education rose over the years of the Howard government. What he cannot escape is simple facts such as that our high school retention rates went backwards. What the previous government was doing in education was not enough, and what the Rudd Labor government is doing is spending on infrastructure that will boost our future productivity as we deal with the current threat of the global financial crisis. Building the Education Revolution is delivering a huge number of projects with value for money. In addition, it is supporting employment in the face of the global financial crisis and it is supporting employment in local communities and schools. It is doing it in ways which will deliver local jobs, delivering and supporting local employment so that we can rise out of this global financial crisis as soon as we possibly can.