Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Hansard source

Let me get to Mr Orgill in a minute. That, fundamentally, is the problem—the government did not have the requisite nous, the requisite flexibility or the requisite expertise to ensure that Commonwealth taxpayers’ money was being well spent by state governments. The Auditor-General has said that. This has implications right across so-called cooperative federalism. It has enormous implications, not just in education but in health and elsewhere. This is an enormous administrative failure.

Let us look at the cost of school buildings built by state governments compared with nongovernment schools. We now know that costs have been inflated by price gouging and mismanagement, and that of course has cost billions. The building program is way behind, particularly in Victoria. We were told we had to wait because the market was overheating in Victoria, and now of course it has become inflationary. I always thought that stimulus projects were supposed to be timely, targeted and temporary. Remember that? That was the original test set by the government. Again, even on their own terms, they have failed.

The government dragged out poor old Mr Orgill, and what did he find in his first report? On page 22, schematic 4, we find that New South Wales government school projects cost $3,477 per square metre. For New South Wales Catholic schools the cost was $2,724 per square metre, and for New South Wales independent schools the cost was $2,148. The cost in New South Wales government schools is more than 60 per cent more per square metre than in New South Wales nongovernment schools. The independent schools are more than $1,300 a square metre cheaper. There is the same pattern in Victoria—government schools $2,850 per square metre; independent schools $1,841. That is a difference of $1,009 per square metre. In Queensland, government schools cost $2,743 per square metre; independent schools $1,736—a difference of $1,007 per square metre. The government is building schools in both Queensland and Victoria that are 50 per cent more expensive per square metre than independent schools, and more than 60 per cent more expensive than independent schools in New South Wales. That is a disgrace.

Mr Orgill, in his own report, said it was not just about cost per square metre; it was about quality and timeliness. Even though the New South Wales government and some of its bureaucrats tried to say that the quality in the Catholic and independent schools was not as good, Mr Orgill found that the quality across all sectors was very similar—the same. So quality is not a relevant differentiating factor. The only factor is time. It is true that in New South Wales the average state government project took 500 days to build while in the independent sector it took 600 days. It took 20 per cent more time to build independent school projects—about 100 days more, or three months—but cost 60 per cent more. In Victoria, the government school projects cost 50 per cent more than in independent schools and they were slower to build than in the independent sector. In Queensland, the independent school projects were completed faster and were much cheaper to build. So timeliness does not even get Mr Orgill and the government off the hook.

The bottom line for about 70 per cent of the schools in Australia—the government schools in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland—is absolutely disgraceful. How much did it cost? If those government school projects had been delivered at the cost delivered for independent schools, we would have saved the taxpayer, the community, about $2.6 billion. If they had been built at the same cost as Catholic school projects, the savings would have been about $1.8 million. I understand we are about to have a flood levy, and it is hoped to raise about $1.8 billion. If the government had secured the value for money that the Catholic and independent schools received from their school hall projects, there would be no need for this levy. The government did not have the oversight mechanisms in place to ensure that state governments secured value for money for their building projects, and that is an absolute disgrace. They knew about it, they were told about it, they were warned about it, but what did they do? Nothing. And, now we have spent about 75 per cent of the money, it is too late to secure value for money for these projects. It is an absolute and utter disgrace.

The other day poor old Mr Orgill had to fend me off in a committee meeting. He was uncomfortable, and I do not blame him—it is not his fault. It is the government’s fault, not Mr Orgill’s. I may have given the government a conceded pass on the building school halls program, but I have lost my generosity when I think that this crowd is about to impose a flood levy on the people of Australia that would not have been necessary if they had secured value for money for state school projects. They do not deserve any generosity in any way at all. All I can do is give the government a big F for fail there as well. It is absolutely disgraceful. It is perhaps the greatest financial mismanagement in the post-war era—and that is saying a lot. It has cost this country billions.

Let me go to the national curriculum—and I wish I had 50 minutes to speak and not just 20. Education is supposed to be the Prime Minister’s strong point, but everything she touches turns to sand. The national curriculum is not a bad idea. The government did well initiating it, and I accept that. It is a good idea because it can raise standards. It can mean world’s best practice. It can mean international benchmarking. I am not against the principle. But what has happened? It has been hijacked by the ideologues, and we have these overarching themes: Asia, sustainability and indigeneity. They are the three overarching themes in our national curriculum. Deputy President Hutchins, you might ask why we don’t have an overarching theme about the importance of liberal democratic institutions. I would have thought that was an important overarching theme. What about the impact of Judaeo-Christian ethics on our life here in Australia? I would have thought that was an important overarching theme. What about the role of science and technology in the material progress of mankind? I would have thought that was an important overarching theme, but apparently not as important as Asia or sustainability or indigeneity. It shows just how out of touch I am, obviously, to possibly believe that the importance of liberal democratic institutions might trump even that. How wrong I am.

The trendies have got involved and the ideologues have got involved, and what has happened? Support for the national curriculum has started to fall. Some states now do not want to introduce it. I know that New South Wales always thought that they had the best system. People like former Premier Bob Carr, who was very strong on education, are concerned that the national curriculum will mean lower standards in New South Wales. I was going to give a pass mark on the national curriculum, but I am not sure I can. I am not sure we should be adopting it. Mr Pyne certainly is not sure we should be adopting it. It seems it is not a good idea—certainly based on its implementation.

The government talks about vocational education and training. Remember the trade training centres? Remember all that? They promised one for each school. With 2,700 schools, there should be 2,700 trade training centres—potentially with some clusters. After three years, how many are up and running? Does anyone want to have a guess? Of the 2,700 that were supposed to be created, how many trade training centres are up and running? After three years, 48 are up and running. We were promised 2,700—another implementation process in shambles. That is the problem.