Recommendation

Response

Recommendation 1

The committee majority recommends that all quarterly reports on maintaining state spending on primary school infrastructure be made available immediately.

Disagree

Information in the quarterly reports is provided by the States in confidence and on the understanding that it would only be made public, in respect of a particular state, if the Commonwealth decided to impose a sanction on that state for failure to meet its benchmark. 

Recommendation 2

The committee majority recommends that when the next round of P21 funding is made available the remaining P21 program funds be provided directly to those government schools choosing to manage their own projects to completion.

Disagree

With over 99 per cent of all P21 projects having commenced as at 31 December 2010, providing schools with funds directly, particularly where contractual commitments are already in place, would serve little benefit.

In its August 2010 interim report, the BER Implementation Taskforce recommended that projects not yet committed should be delivered in accordance with a pre-BER ‘business as usual’ approach to capital works and that school stakeholders should be more involved in decision making.

The Government has agreed to implement this recommendation made by the Taskforce in its August 2010 interim report.

Recommendation 3

The committee majority recommends that the government immediately require all state and territory education authorities and Block Grant Authorities to publish breakdowns of all individual P21 project costs.

Noted

In its August 2010 interim report, the BER Implementation Taskforce recommended that in the interest of transparency and public accountability, each education authority publish school specific project cost data related to BER P21 in a nationally common structure with consistent definitions. The Government has agreed to put in place a nationally common structure with consistent definitions. This structure was published in January 2011 with the agreement of education authorities.

Recommendation 4

The committee majority recommends that DEEWR release original applications and project costs as P21 projects are completed, together with an explanation regarding any contract cost variations.

Agree in part

Consistent with the response to recommendation 3, the Government has agreed to put in place a nationally common structure with consistent definitions for reporting on project costs. This structure was published in January 2011 with the agreement of education authorities.

The Government does not agree to release original applications as they pre-date detailed tendering and procurement processes and buildings were not designed or costed in detail at that point. In addition, the original applications and project costs may have been subjected to variations for a number of valid reasons and this will not be evident in this information.

Recommendation 5

The committee majority recommends strengthening accountability mechanisms for oversight of state expenditure of Commonwealth money. This should include enhancing the powers of the Auditor-General to ‘follow the money trail’ to ensure value for money is achieved by the Commonwealth for state expenditure of Commonwealth monies.

Noted

This issue was covered in the terms of reference of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) Inquiry into the Auditor-General Act 1997. While that inquiry lapsed with the prorogation of the Parliament on 19 July 2010, it would be appropriate for government to respond to this issue through any recommendations arising from that Inquiry.

The Government further notes that the BER Implementation Taskforce was established by the Australian Government in April 2010 with the express purpose of assessing value for money aspects of individual projects, as well as systemic issues, and ensuring allegations of waste are fully investigated. With the ongoing work of the Taskforce, a Senate inquiry, two state parliamentary inquiries, an Australian National Audit Office audit and the various audits being undertaken within jurisdictions the BER is a heavily scrutinised program.

Recommendation 6

The committee majority recommends that the BER Implementation Taskforce be given access to all costings and be able to examine all relevant contracts to enable it to properly discharge its function to ensure the community that value for money is being achieved.

Agree

The Government established the BER Implementation Taskforce to provide an additional level of scrutiny over the implementation of the BER program, assessment of value for money and the use of Australian Government money.

In its August 2010 interim report, the Taskforce noted that it is receiving cooperation from Education Authorities to access costings and relevant contracts.

Recommendation 7

To ensure that further taxpayer money is not subject to waste and mismanagement, the committee majority recommends that the release of any further BER funding be delayed until the BER Implementation Taskforce reports to the Minister for Education in August 2010.

Disagree

The BER Implementation Taskforce released its interim report on 6 August 2010. The Government has accepted and will implement in full all 14 recommendations. The report stated that the BER program “is delivering much needed infrastructure to school communities while achieving the primary goal of economic activity across the nation.”

The Government will continue to consider recommendations from the Taskforce regarding any future payments.

Recommendation 8

The committee majority recommends that the BER Implementation Taskforce report be made publicly available when it is presented to the Minister for Education.

Agree

The BER Implementation Taskforce interim report was made publicly available when it was released on 6 August 2010. The Taskforce’s first full report was also made publicly available when it was released on 15 December 2010.

Recommendation 9

In order to fully examine the systemic failure of Commonwealth oversight mechanisms, the committee majority recommends that a judicial inquiry be established to inquire into whether the BER program has achieved value for money.

Disagree

The Government believes a judicial inquiry is a long and expensive exercise that is unnecessary for a program that has already been subject to an Australian National Audit Office investigation and federal and state parliamentary inquiries.

The Government established the BER Implementation Taskforce to provide an additional level of scrutiny over the implementation of the BER program, assessment of value for money and the use of Australian Government money. The independent chair of this taskforce has testified that all 22 Education Authorities are fully cooperating with his inquiries and making all requested documentation available. The Taskforce comprises specialist expertise from the building and construction industry, economists, Quantity Surveyors and contract law experts.