Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The President has received a letter from Senator Mason proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The Rudd Government’s $14.7 billion Building the Education Revolution which has been poorly conceived and poorly implemented and is not providing the Australian taxpayer with value for money.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The nation was told that Building the Education Revolution was the largest infrastructure fund of its kind in our nation’s history. We were told what a wonderful thing it was—it was part of the education revolution and, indeed, would revolutionise education in Australia’s primary schools. The genesis of the project is a COAG agreement of February 2009. The objectives, as laid out by the government in the COAG process, are twofold. First of all, the objective is to ‘provide economic stimulus through the rapid construction and refurbishment of school infrastructure’, and, secondly, to ‘build learning environments to help children, families and communities participate in activities that will support achievement, develop learning potential and bring communities together’. The outcomes sought by the COAG process, by the federal government spending $14.7 billion of taxpayers’ money, are twofold:

(a)           Economic stimulus and job creation in local communities.

(b)           Modern teaching and learning environments for school and community use.

That is from February 2009. What in fact has happened? What has been the result thus far of Building the Education Revolution? It is a rollcall of horror, a litany of failure, an embarrassment for the government—a project that has not properly got off the ground.

Let me just illustrate to you part of the problem. Let me just scratch the surface of what is going on with $14.7 billion in this country. These are just some of the problems that have occurred. Schools are not getting what they want. Let me give you some examples. Langwarrin School, in Victoria, wanted to spend money refurbishing a school wing. Instead, the Victorian education bureaucrats demanded they demolish the old wing and build a new one without any extra capacity. Isn’t that a clever way to spend taxpayers’ money! What a wonderful way to spend part of this $14.7 billion on what the government told us was a unique opportunity to refurbish Australia’s schools! What a great start!

I have another example—this goes on. Berwick Lodge Primary School, in Melbourne’s outer south-east—I think it was mentioned last week—requested a library and six classrooms for the $3 million that it has been allocated. It was then offered by the Victorian bureaucrats a $2.1 million gym, even though the school already has a gym. Finally, it has been offered another building which it does not even want. So that is where we were up to. There are a couple of examples: Berwick Lodge Primary School—another fiasco. Holland Park State School in Brisbane—I have some idea about this one. This one happens to be in the Prime Minister’s electorate of Griffith. In December Holland Park State School in Brisbane finished building a multipurpose hall for $1.3 million. Now the school has received $1.5 million for another multipurpose hall and another $1.5 million on top of that for a resource centre or library. Although the school has a library, it was not purpose-built, so it does not qualify as a library. And Education Queensland guidelines require schools to build a library as their first priority. So what is going to happen to Holland Park State School? They might end up with two halls or two libraries. It is another part of a tapestry of a fiasco. Schools are not getting what they want.

How about overpricing? This is an issue the opposition has been raising ever since Building the Education Revolution commenced. Lake Wangary Primary School in South Australia has been given a grant to spend $850,000 on a new hall, despite having independent advice that it could have been done for between $250,000 and $300,000. And the government wonders why the opposition is so concerned about the tendering arrangements—across the entire country with $14.7 billion up for grabs and a building industry that can barely cope with the demand. The building industry themselves cannot cope with the new demands on their work. But the government does not care; it just wants to spend the money. West of Bundaberg, Mulgildie State School—which I mentioned last week in the Senate—received $250,000 to build a basic 60-square-metre shed, having previously received an independent quote for the same sort of structure for only $29,000. Paying $250,000 to build a 60-square-metre shed is not what I call value for money. But, again, this is emblematic of the problems that are occurring nationwide.

The demand now for building is so great—because the government went into this in such a rush without a proper tendering process, without proper oversight of the state processes—that now the prices are inflated. Everyone says the prices are inflated. Speak to a builder. The Hastings Public School, on the New South Wales mid-North Coast, received $400,000 to build a covered outdoor learning area—the same structure that had cost $40,000 to build only six years ago. Grant Heaton, the principal, said, ‘Inflation hasn’t increased tenfold in six years.’ He said that for that price he was expecting a ‘Taj Mahal of covered outdoor learning areas’. The school has also received $2.6 million for a double classroom with a special-purpose room. Again, it is the same problem. Schools are not getting what they want and, even when they do, they are being charged too much for it, because the money is being thrown out far too quickly. I could go on and on about this. The government is bending the rules. Fifteen Adelaide schools have been given laptops under the National School Pride Program, even though, firstly, the guidelines prohibit the provision of computer equipment in competition with the Digital Education Revolution and, secondly, the schools are all closing down. It seems the laptops will be laundered for six new schools to be opened in 2010 and 2011. This is getting worse and worse, and day by day this litany of failure gets deeper and longer and worse and more expensive. It seems that no matter how much the opposition raises the issue, the minister in the House of Representatives, Ms Gillard, the Minister for Education, does not seem too concerned.

What really concerned me was what was said by Mr Gavrielatos, the Federal President of the Australian Education Union—not generally a friend, let us face it, of the coalition, I think that is fair to say. When the AEU’s call for review of the program was rejected by Ms Gillard, he said:

What is the Government rejecting? The need to evaluate the program? The capacity to improve on a program? I find that a quite astonishing statement.

He went on to say:

It is astonishing the Government would argue against a process aimed at further improving on the delivery of this significant announcement.

That is the key: this program should be reviewed. Mr Gavrielatos knows that. Principals around the nation know that. The parents know that. The teachers know that.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The unions know that.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And, as Senator Cash says, the unions know it. Why? Because this is not a good spend. The taxpayer is being diddled and that is the problem. The government are more concerned about getting the money out there at whatever cost. It might not be good value, it might be terrible value, but they just want to throw enough money around and hope that some of it sticks. I suppose if you spend $14.7 billion, a couple of dollars might stick and a couple of jobs might be created, and a couple of sheds might be built. That just might happen if you are lucky. If you spend $14.7 billion, something might just happen.

The problems are simple. This program has insufficient flexibility. It is run on what the school principal cited in the Senate last week described as ‘notorious templates’. In the end it is state bureaucrats who decide the buildings that the state government schools get. Those notorious templates, centrally planned for government schools in the state capitals, are the templates that are provided to government schools—that marvellous whiff of central planning, Senator Faulkner, that I am sure you love so well, that marvellous sense of central planning that apparently was going to solve all our problems. It has not, and it certainly has not solved the problems for state schools throughout this country because these notorious templates are not sufficiently flexible. In the end, if it is a joust between the school community and the state bureaucracy, guess who wins? Who wins that joust? The state bureaucracy. If the school community do not get their way, they do not get anything. That is the problem and that is the great failure in this scheme.

Secondly, overcharging is becoming worse and worse—and I know my opposition colleagues have been arguing about this now for weeks. The problem really is this: state governments are oversighting the running of these programs in each state, and the Commonwealth oversight of those state processes is insufficient. That fundamentally is the problem with this program.

There are two problems: (1) there is no flexibility with the templates and (2) the Commonwealth oversight of state government tendering processes is insufficient. What that means is this: when tenders are called, they are not competitive or there is only one because of the lack of uptake, and the money is being thrown out too quickly. I have heard calls all around Queensland in the last few weeks, ever since estimates, about quotes going up 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 per cent. Why? Because the government will spend whatever it takes of the $14.7 billion to put up a shed to create a job. That is the essential failure of this program.

Finally, it seems there is a bit of bullying by state governments starting. State governments are out to use the money for their own projects so that they do not have to fund schools, as they should be funding them, I might add. State governments and state bureaucrats are bullying principals and saying, ‘If you report this to the Australian or any other newspaper, you won’t get anything.’ Not only do we have a lack of flexibility and the fact that there is overcharging, we also have bullying. The bullying of primary schools is getting worse and worse.

Let me make a prediction. Over the next 12 months, we are going to see many more billions of dollars rolled out in this program. The question we all have to ask is: is this money well spent? That is the question. Is this a good spend? Is this the best way of spending $14.7 billion? Is the taxpayer getting the best value for their dollar, the best bang for their buck? The answer quite simply is no. I know that. Parents know that. Teachers know that. Unions know that. I suspect high-school students will get to know that as well. The great failure of this program has been in the implementation.

I applaud the government in that many of the objectives, in a loose sense, are fine. But throwing $14½ billion at the problem does not solve it. It is the same old Labor Party. We do not have the best spend that we are all entitled to. We do not have the best spend at all for that $14.7 billion. We do not even have a good spend. This is a third-rate spend that has no flexibility to give students and teachers, and even trade unions, what they need—there is not that. There is overcharging—10, 20, 30 and 40 per cent. And, finally, and perhaps most regrettably and increasingly, there is now bullying by state bureaucrats. On that basis this program is a failure.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It certainly seems that today is a day of stunts and beat-ups.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Gavin!

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Mason objects to that comment, and I do feel sorry for Senator Mason because I know he is one of the few people in the coalition who actually cares about education. It must have hurt him to be part of a government that reduced, in real terms, spending on education over its time in government. Here he is, consigned to opposition and trying to beat something up when we are undertaking the biggest ever infrastructure spend in our schools and school communities. Because he is in opposition and has some official role, he has to try to beat up some of the things that he construes as problems with this program.

I find it a very strange tactic of the opposition to come in here and raise this issue for debate. We are very happy to debate this issue because we are so proud of the work that we are doing. We are incredibly proud of the legacy in education that we are going to leave the school community and the future generations of our kids through this program. The Australian government will invest a further $14.7 billion to boost the Australian education revolution in the next three years through the Building the Education Revolution program. This will boost jobs and invest in Australia’s long-term future through building new facilities or upgrading existing buildings in every one of Australia’s 9,540 schools. It is worth noting that members of the opposition opposed the Building the Education Revolution program’s $14.7 billion investment in our nation’s schools. I suppose that is one explanation for the beat-up that Senator Mason wants to pursue with this quite ridiculous motion and his quite hollow arguments, and I will go to the detail of some of the arguments in a moment.

The opposition actually opposed this program, but that does not stop many of them turning up to the opening of these projects, putting up their hands and saying, ‘We think it’s great,’ when the buildings and programs are being delivered. They want to be part of it then but they seem very conveniently to forget that they opposed it in this chamber. The record stands on that. Of course they want the system to fail, so they want to talk it down and to beat up articles in the Australian newspaper to try to undermine the whole program. But the program is fundamentally sound. It is part of a stimulus package that this government has put in place to protect jobs and leave a legacy of substantial improvements in the education system in this country.

I trust that opposition senators have advised schools in their states and territories that they voted against and are opposed to the schools receiving this assistance. Again, is it any wonder that Senator Mason gets up with this stunt, this beat-up? The opposition voted against this investment in our schools, which yet again shows that they are against us supporting Australian jobs. In this global financial crisis they are opposed to this spending, which is going to support thousands and thousands of jobs across the whole of the country, in every school in every community. To date, the Building the Education Revolution program has commenced funding for over 20,000 infrastructure projects, valued at $10.4 billion, rolling out the money in the communities that need it most in order to support jobs.

Before I analyse some of the shallow arguments that Senator Mason put forward, I will again briefly remind the Senate of the three key elements of Building the Education Revolution. The first is Primary Schools for the 21st Century. That is a $12.4 billion long-term investment to build or improve large-scale infrastructure such as halls, gymnasiums and libraries in all primary schools, special schools and K-12 schools. The second element is Science and Language Centres for 21st Century Secondary Schools, a $1 billion investment to build approximately 500 new science labs and language-learning centres for schools with a demonstrated need and a readiness to begin construction. The third is the National School Pride program, which is $1.3 billion to refurbish existing infrastructure and embark on minor building projects.

Under rounds 1 and 2 of the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program, 5,215 Australian schools were successful in having 6,983 projects approved, totalling $9.19 billion. This is an unheard-of investment in our schools and education system, something the opposition, when they were in government, never even dreamed of doing. But they have the hide to come in here and criticise this largest ever single investment in school infrastructure.

Under the National School Pride program, 9,490 Australian schools were successful in having 13,176 projects approved, totalling $1.26 billion. The education revolution will increase the quantity of investment and the quality of education in Australia through a number of programs, including but not limited to Building the Education Revolution, the Digital Education Revolution, Trade Training Centres in Schools, the National Action Plan on Literacy and Numeracy and the education tax refund. The education revolution is more than just infrastructure, however. Already in motion are important national partnerships, including $550 million to improve literacy and numeracy, $500 million to improve teacher quality and $1.5 billion for low-SES schools. And, again, Senator Mason comes in here with a stunt, a beat-up to try to say: ‘Let’s not spend that money. Let’s not roll it out.’ He says the results so far are a failure and an embarrassment. They are anything but. We are enormously proud of the speed and quality with which this is being rolled out.

I want to take the Senate to the Senate estimates process, where Senator Mason spent hours and hours on this issue. Senate estimates is a fantastic process of accountability which the Senate involves itself in. I, of course, chair the legislation committee on education. Senator Mason talked about the monitoring processes, and I want to quote from the estimates transcript, because it is very convenient for Senator Mason to go to Senate estimates, ask questions, get the answers, get the truth, get the evidence but then simply ignore it—to come in here as if none of that evidence had been given to him—because it does not suit the stunt and the beat-up that he wants to promote. The head of the department, Ms Paul, said:

We are undertaking probably a world-leading monitoring process to get to not only how many workers there are but how many apprentices. I think it is absolutely fantastic.

This goes to the issue of job creation in the local communities, and Senator Mason says:

I accept that.

They are his words: ‘I accept that’. Ms Paul then goes on to say:

I have not heard of it in any other sphere or indeed in any other country that we have been talking to about these packages.

And Senator Mason responds:

I accept what you say and the information about job creation will be comprehensive.

So he accepts the evidence of the department in Senate estimates but then comes in here and denies that Senate estimates even happened.

Let us go again to the monitoring process. Dr Nicoll, also from the department—the manager actually heading up the Building the Education Revolution project—said:

We are not monitoring that on a project-by-project basis.

This is about the actual jobs being created in the local areas. He continued:

The states and territories and the block grant authorities as part of their funding agreements are asked to give priority wherever possible to employment in local communities. In some cases it simply will not be possible to have local communities employed on some of these projects.

And what does Senator Mason say? He says:

I accept that. It is the priority. That is all I am saying.

So, in terms of monitoring the process about job creation, Senator Mason well knows because we spent endless hours going into the detail of that monitoring process—and, quite frankly, it is one of the envies of the world.

What did Ms Paul say when asked about value for money? Ms Paul, the head of the department, said:

Certainly even just attending to value for money had not always been done in the past.

Oh, that is strange; she must have been talking about previous projects of the previous government. Obviously, it was never a priority for them to talk about value for money. She went on to say:

One of the key innovations here is not only getting it out fast but having a system that actually in real time records how many people are being employed, which is absolutely phenomenal. I have recently had reason to find out a bit about infrastructure stimulus in other English-speaking countries. No-one is on as fast a track—at least of the countries that I came across—as we are. I do not know of anyone else who can actually track in real time how much work is actually being generated as a result of these projects.

Of course, these projects are part of the very important stimulus program that this government has put in place to protect the jobs of Australian workers and at the same time give this enormous boost—the single biggest boost ever—to building education infrastructure in this country.

Senator Mason wanted to make a big deal about some of the isolated criticisms that have been made. We also know through the process how they have been relying on the Australian to beat up some of these issues. They bring articles into this place and then, to their great embarrassment, when the facts are out, find out that it is not quite what the Australian may have reported.

Principals have to sign off on every project. It is part of the Commonwealth government’s requirement that the local principal signs off on the project. If the principal does not sign off on the project, that project will not go ahead. Senator Mason was at estimates—in fact he was asking the questions about this very point—so he knows that if the principals are unhappy with the program that they are getting or the negotiations with the state bureaucrats, they simply need not sign off.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And lose the money.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They do not lose the money. I take that interjection from Senator Humphries, because he was there also when we talked about the state government and how people can intervene. I want to go to that very important question about what happens when the school community disagrees with the state bureaucracy, because they are actually managing the rollout. What happens when they disagree? These issues were covered in Senate estimates and the evidence is on Hansard. Dr Nicoll said:

I recall the issue of Bobs Farm Public School. In that case the school had sought a quote from a local builder for a particular construction that did not include insulation and appropriate fit-out for the building, and the principal felt that he or she could have received a cheaper price by going to the local builder, but the building that that builder would have provided would not have been of the quality that would have been accepted by the New South Wales Department of Education for students. It missed a whole lot of things that the school would then have had to pay for later on.

We actually have standards for school buildings and the requirements for our children. It is not simply about any builder saying, ‘I think I could do that,’ at a standard that they may think is acceptable. We are talking about school infrastructure that needs to be rugged and last for a long, long time. Senator Mason then said:

I am not even saying the school community always gets it right. What you are saying is that the school community did not necessarily get it right but that the government had other objectives in the particular case; is that right?

Dr Nicoll responded:

The governments’ objective, both the Commonwealth’s and the state’s, is for the highest quality product for students to be able to operate in that we can possibly achieve.

Senator Mason then asked—and this is the crux of Senator Mason’s argument:

How do you reconcile when school communities want a certain project and the state government wants another one? How do you resolve the tension between the two?

And Dr Nicoll responded:

We look to the education authority to work with the school community. If there is not a resolution possible, it would be possible for the Commonwealth to step in. The bottom line from our point of view would be—and I know this is the Deputy Prime Minister’s view—that what the school community wants would be what the school community should get.

That is the evidence. Principals do not have to sign off and the Commonwealth can intervene when there is a dispute between the school community and the state bureaucracy. (Time expired)

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to address a number of things that have been raised in this debate. I will start with the point raised by Senator Marshall at the end. He talked about how robust this system of funding building projects in schools might be and how flexible the bureaucrats are in facing difficulties or problems that the schools might have in accepting certain template projects. I certainly did hear those assurances being given by the department, but I have also read the words of Henry Grossek, the principal of the Berwick Lodge Primary School in Melbourne, who encountered in a practical sense what was going on with a particular project which his school wanted. He wanted to have certain projects that the department did not want him to have. He said in a letter to the Australian that ‘schools are being harassed into signing off on templates they did not want’. He went on to say that state bureaucrats are ‘being complicit in the siphoning off of vast sums from government schools, particularly given that they accepted templates with only the flimsiest of building details and a total absence of costing valuations’.

Yes, projects might eventually have been sorted out in the case of that school, but, unless principals take steps like that, are other schools going to get those sorts of outcomes? I have my doubts. Why should they be forced in the first place to accept templates that do not suit their needs? One of the things I want to come back to in this debate is the question of whether it should be the schools initiating these projects or whether it should be the bureaucrats and the government sitting here in splendid isolation in this city.

No-one would question real investment in education. No-one would want to attack a program that does actually improve the quality of classroom teaching in this country. In other circumstances you would have to say that the investment of $14.7 billion in schools would be very good news indeed. But the longer and harder one looks at this spectacularly large project, the more one begins to wonder exactly what is going on. The more one sees the options for sustained improvement in classrooms being passed by in the pursuit of flimsy headlines, the more one realises that this whole program is one of missed opportunities, rushed decisions, flawed process and the bypassing and disempowering of local communities who have a better idea than other people of what they can achieve in their own schools.

Labor are very good at spending money; what they are not so good at is spending it well. That is the point which has been raised with this matter of public importance today. It is not about the magnitude of this investment in education. Nobody begrudges putting a lot of money into education. The former government did that; this government appears to be doing it. Nobody has an issue with investing heavily in education. But we owe it to a community like ours, particularly when our economy is at such risk, to spend every dollar of government revenue in this context in the best possible way and to waste none of it. Endlessly talking about how these programs are meant to work and the size of the investment does not cover up the key question here, which is: how well targeted or planned is this investment?

It needs to be said that good schools are not defined by the quality of their bricks and mortar. You do not get a good school merely because it is new and has lots of new facilities and infrastructure. Nor are old schools or even rundown schools necessarily bad schools. The quality of infrastructure in schools is one element. It is part of the answer to producing better quality educational outcomes, but it is not, I emphasise, the whole answer. A good illustration of this is the way the government has approached the question of distance education. Initially, schools that catered for the provision of distance education in Australia were not to be eligible for Building the Education Revolution funding. They were completely off the radar. It was only when this issue was raised in the Senate estimates committee a couple of weeks ago that the government indicated it would be revising this position and coming back to look at whether we could in fact put money into schools which have no infrastructure but whose quality of outcomes is very important to the students who happen to be enrolled in those sorts of educational opportunities.

This goes to an important point about the government’s program: it is built around deciding in advance what schools need. Contrast that with what the previous government put forward, the Investing in Our Schools Program, which was a community driven exercise. We did not say to people, ‘You’ll have a library, you’ll have an all-purpose hall, you’ll have X number of computers.’ We said to them, ‘What do you want? What’ll make your school a better school? What does your community want to see happening in that school?’ People put their hands up in droves and they got the outcomes they wanted. They got the money they were after, they got processes they could drive in their own local communities and they were happy with those outcomes. I am afraid that what we are going to see with the so-called Building the Education Revolution program is precisely the opposite. We will see people being pushed like square pegs into round holes.

I also want to address the question raised by Senator Marshall about the previous government’s performance on education. It is raised constantly by those opposite and it is completely untrue. When we came to government, the federal government was funding government schools across Australia to the tune of $1.4 billion a year. When we left office nearly 12 years later, we were funding government schools to the tune of $3.5 billion a year. That represents an increase in real terms of 77 per cent across those 12 or so years. It is a complete untruth to suggest that the previous government neglected to fund education or in some way ran it down. I am proud of our achievements in education. I am proud in particular of the processes we used. As far as Investing in Our Schools was concerned, we did not want to have a program that was driven by state government bureaucrats because, frankly, they are the ones who have allowed current investment in schools to decline—a decline which had to be addressed by the federal coalition government with its increased recurrent funding for government education across the states.

So raw numbers do not make an education revolution. Simply throwing billions of dollars into a name, a slogan, does not add up to a change in outlook for Australian schools and Australian students. Even if $1 of every $5 in this program is misdirected or wasted, that represents a waste to the taxpayer of $3 billion. How much better could we spend $3 billion in the current environment? (Time expired)

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One would be justified in thinking that schools who were receiving grants from the Commonwealth government might actually be over the moon. But it really must say something about the atrocious implementation of this program that schools are coming out every single day of the week—in fact, if you listen to talkback radio, they are coming out phone call after phone call—calling on the government to revise the way this program is being delivered. It is shameful. Listening to those on the other side trying to justify this atrocious spending demonstrates beyond a doubt the depth to which this government will stoop to put a good spin over what they know is a very bad spend. But, then again, it is only public money, and they do not really have to care about how they spend public money. That is for us on this side to hold them accountable for, and that is what we will continue to do.

Indeed, as my colleague Senator Mason has so eloquently put it, despite all of its spin, the government simply cannot reassure the Australian community that $14.7 billion of taxpayers’ money is being spent appropriately. Let me give the Senate an example from my home state of Western Australia—and you are really going to like this one. The headline in the Australian on 20 June read:

$250,000 hall for remote Yulga Jinna Remote Community School ‘a waste’

The article went on to report that the Yulga Jinna Remote Community School has only 24 students amongst three classrooms. Apparently, with funding it received from the Building the Education Revolution program, it must build a multipurpose hall which will give it, in effect, a fourth classroom. And this is wherein the problem lies, because the school does not need a fourth classroom for its 24 students.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One each!

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One each. But the school does desperately need something. They have identified what they need and it is better accommodation for their teachers. The article goes on to report that the two teachers who work at this school are living in mining dongas, or transportable huts, which lack telephones or even, in one case, an indoor shower and toilet. One might say that those are harsh conditions which most Australians would find it a challenge to live in. What does the Rudd Labor government say to this remote community school? ‘You need another classroom.’ I think not. If supporting these teachers with accommodation is not a better use of the $250,000 that the school will receive, it is hard to imagine what is.

But it saddens me to say that my home state of Western Australia does not appear to be alone in dealing with the bungling, the inflexibility and the poor spend of this $14.7 billion fiasco. It would seem that yet again, as with most Labor policy, ideology wins over practicality or common sense, and once again it is the Australian taxpayer who will be footing the bill. Another media report in today’s Australian, entitled ‘Schools merger threat’, details how the Tasmanian State School Parents and Friends President, Jenny Branch, has expressed her concerns that Building the Education Revolution program funds ‘were used to exert undue pressure on parents and schools to quickly accept a major rationalisation of schools in Hobart’s north’. Here is another example, this time reported in the Brisbane Courier-Mail: an undercover playground with concrete floors and no doors was to cost $1.8 million under the Rudd government’s program. The list goes on.

I was listening to a radio program today which claimed to have received 24 complaints from schools regarding their projects. One has to wonder how many more schools are too afraid to speak up for fear of having this funding ripped from them. To quote Alan Jones from his radio program:

So this is a so-called revolution which is hopelessly lacking in detail and throwing money around willy-nilly for gymnasiums and halls, without asking whether the school where they are to be built may just happen to need—

for example—

more maths teachers instead.

That is not effective spending. That is ineffective spending of taxpayers’ money, and it is because of this litany of complaints that the coalition has called for an urgent review of the program. But even from the United States, the Deputy Prime Minister could still be heard keeping the Labor spin machine in overdrive, claiming that the education revolution has a focus on transparency. Well, it must be a very murky form of transparency! While the Labor Party’s spin machine rolls on, the only people who are losing out are Australian students and Australian schools. This is bureaucracy gone mad. It is quite clear that the nation’s chief bureaucrat, the Prime Minister, is extremely comfortable with how things are proceeding. I can tell you that the coalition are not. (Time expired)

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for this debate has expired.