Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

The Rudd Labor Government’s continued failure to implement its “education revolution” in a timely, efficient and cost effective manner, including its failure to:

(a)

Deliver and connect computers in schools,

(b)

Establish the Trade Training Centres,

(c)

Improve learning outcomes, and

(d)

Create jobs through the Building the Education Revolution Program.

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—

The Acting Deputy President:

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.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If ever there has been a matter of public importance whose discussion is clearly justified, it is this one. Labor’s Building the Education Revolution has much in common with the comrade revolutions of yesteryear, because Labor have failed at every turn to implement a change or anything of benefit to schools and communities in a timely and cost-efficient manner that does not waste taxpayer funds. They have talked about the delivery and connection of computers in schools, they have said that they would establish trade training centres, they have said they would improve and increase learning outcomes and they have said that they would create jobs. They have certainly created jobs; they have also created many multimillionaires out of the people tendering for and getting these building contracts who have been able to charge two, three, four or five times more than the market rate, and that has meant that taxpayers have not got value for money.

For more than two years the Australian people have been smothered in the spin, the rhetoric and the empty words of the government, and it is starting to catch up with them. It is about all talk and no action. Where they have taken action and where they have implemented initiatives, they have failed—they have been duds or they have been wasteful. There is no other way we can explain it. Mr Kevin Rudd and his team of yesteryear people are in way over their heads. They cannot justifiably manage the money that the Australian taxpayers have entrusted to them.

If we want examples, we do not have to look far. Every day there is another page on the waste that is associated with this government. Just today, in the Australian there was an article about the Pleasant Hills Public School near Wagga Wagga. It has 15 students. I am sure it is a fine school. They required a few extra works under the Building the Education Revolution: a partition in a classroom, a higher opening between two classrooms and installation of an art sink—all very practical and sensible things. The problem is that the quote for this work and a few other jobs came to in excess of $249,000. In this amount, $77,000 was spent on design documentation, field data and site management. Nearly 25 per cent of the cost of installing an art sink, a partition in a classroom, a sandpit and a few other bits was spent on planning and design documentation. The site works were $60,000-odd, and then there were anomalous costs: preliminary work of $25,000, substructure work, superstructure work and site services. All of these things are much more than the taxpayer should or would be willing to pay if the government were actually responsible. The Pleasant Hills parents and citizens committee told their local MP:

We will be getting all that was requested but we feel that the costs associated with the work is not value for money for the taxpayers’ dollar …

Even the beneficiaries of this realise that taxpayers are being ripped off by this government’s lack of control and ability to implement a reasonable program.

The New South Wales Teachers Federation has written to the Auditor-General to ask for an inquiry into the school building program. The Deputy President, Gary Zadkovich, said a school:

… may receive an $850,000 trucked-in prefabricated classroom or library when it knows a fully furnished brick home would cost half that …

A prefab versus a brick structure—a rip-off for the taxpayers. It is all because of the blind and naked ambition of the government to buy their way back into power regardless of long-term cost.

On a recent radio program it was said that covered outdoor learning areas were costing about $950,000 under the comrade revolution over there, but only a few years ago a slightly smaller covered outdoor learning area cost about three-tenths of that. It is appalling mismanagement of money. In my state of South Australia, where the hapless and hopeless Rann government has been shown to be much better than this government, I have had numerous reports of electricians who were told, ‘Just quote whatever you like under this Building the Education Revolution. We’ll accept it. This is the way to pay for your holiday home or a new boat to go fishing in.’ This is the rorting that is going on, and people out there are concerned. They are concerned because the government has lost control and they turn to us in the coalition to hold this government to account, but when we do, when we ask the government very pertinent and reasonable questions, what do we get? We get class warfare from Senator Carr in the Senate. I am sure it would be no surprise that Senator Marshall—who I think received one vote for President of the Senate—will probably conduct some other class warfare as well. It is a great shame because the Australian people deserve better. Yes, they do deserve infrastructure spending, but it needs to be prudent. It needs to be reasonable use of taxpayers’ money because anything else is sentencing generations of future Australians to debt that is completely unnecessary.

The teachers federations are up in arms about it; the legitimate, honest and reputable tradesmen are up in arms about it; the parents and friends and committees are up in arms about it. The coalition is very concerned about the waste and what it is going to do to our future. The only people who do not seem concerned about this waste are those on the other side. They are in denial. They are saying, ‘This is all good. It’s much more important to roll these programs out irrespective of the cost.’ Quite frankly, that is not how a reasonably minded person thinks. Anyone who argues against the logic that you should not be paying above the odds and that you should not be throwing too much into an economy at one time because it does not have the ability to cope and it will change and inflate prices really has to be barking mad. It will be interesting to hear the response from the other side and how they defend this enormous waste of money.

In conclusion, last night I had the great fortune to attend a function for the Australian National University Liberal Club. I met a young lady there who recently featured on television. She should be famous as the person who belled the cat on the fraud of the Prime Minister. Ms Angela Samuels was in the audience of Q&A when the Prime Minister thought he would get an easy ride, but he did not. The young people of today realise what a fraud he is and they can see through him. Ms Samuels stood up and asked the Prime Minister about his computer revolution and how he was going to deliver it. The Prime Minister told this young lady porky pies. She shook her head and the Prime Minister admonished her on national television. Ms Samuels, you can stand proud and you can stand tall because you are one of the few people in the public who was prepared to bell the cat on the Prime Minister. He was telling you fibs on Q&A, he has been telling the Australian people fibs and he should be ashamed of how his programs have been implemented.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to make a contribution to this motion on the Rudd government’s complete failure to implement what it termed with great fanfare during the election as the ‘education revolution’. I recall saying to some people at the time that revolutions are usually accompanied by chaos and all sorts of mismanagement, and we have seen it again—complete and utter chaos in the management of this program, really demonstrating this government’s complete lack of capacity to run programs. In my view, this program has the capacity to be a bigger problem for the government than its scandalous pink batts program. Once this program is properly scrutinised—and we know the government is trying to batten down the hatches, get everyone to stay quiet and hold off on releasing all the information that it possibly can for as long as it possibly can—and once all this starts to come out, I think you will see that this is going to be a bigger problem for the government than was the pink batts program.

Senator Bernardi has already put some of the information on the table as to concerns that have been raised with him. A real sign of the significance of the problem is that the New South Wales Teachers Federation—part of the Labor Party’s own—is now saying that it is concerned about the rort, the overpricing, the overcosting of this program and has written to the Auditor-General in New South Wales saying it wants the Auditor-General in New South Wales to look at it. We know the Auditor-General here is going to look at it at a federal level, but I do not hold much hope that we will see anything on this program before the election. I would like to think that we might but I doubt that we will. That is no reflection on the Auditor-General; it is just the way things are going.

We can go right back to the start and look at the way this program started. Right at the outset we had signs outside schools. Every school regardless of whether it had a project up and running yet got a school sign out the front proudly saying that this school would be the beneficiary of the education revolution. It is about the only successful part of this program—the government has managed to get signs up outside every school. But the signs have to stay there for two years, right through the election. In Tasmania, they even offend the Electoral Act. Bruce Taylor, the Electoral Commissioner, has deemed them to be electoral matter under the state Electoral Act 2004. The ruling leaves no doubt that these signs are designed to provide a political advantage to the government. So, that was at the very outset of this program.

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

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We saw the signs in place. I will take the interjection because I worked in the construction industry for many years and I saw many, many construction signs out the front of schools. A genuine construction sign had the name of the contractor, the name of the project, the name of the architect and the details of the project. I saw dozens and dozens of school project signs in my time and I know what they look like. They do not look like anything like this and they were not declared to be electoral advertising under the Electoral Act. So, Senator, if you want to interject then you go for your life because we know exactly what they are and we know exactly what they were designed to do. Of course, they have to be covered up at election time; the electoral officer said that. The local member for Braddon, Mr Sidebottom, said they were no different to a sign on a road. Well, there are not too many roads that I know that are actually polling booths. There are not too many roads anywhere in this country that double as a polling booth. Here you have, outside polling booths all around the country, these electoral signs that are deemed to offend the Electoral Act.

Next we can look at what has been occurring as part of the program. Senator Bernardi has already detailed some of those things. When you start talking to contractors who are involved in these projects you hear the problems that they are facing. When you talk to the school communities you hear the problems they are facing. There are delays in project commencement. There are no completion dates on contracts or completion dates that are a long way out. You see very, very poor documentation in some cases, which is causing contractors to have to put contingency into their pricing because they do not know what they are going to miss.

I have spoken to a school which had to have its power lines changed and its septic tanks moved because the documentation did not include those sorts of things. These things are all leaving shortfalls for the schools in finishing the projects and causing delays. Contractors are having to price the projects two or three times because they have been over-specified and have to be cut back or they have been over-calculated and then cut back.

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

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, it is not common when you get decently documented projects.

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

It is common.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I do not know what construction industry you are working in but it certainly was not the situation in the construction industry that I worked in, I can promise you that. Quality documentation is absolutely paramount and there are significant problems that are occurring in the schools with respect to this. There is no question that it is having a detrimental effect on school communities. You see genuine contractors who say, ‘We don’t worry about these projects too much. We have decided we will take a few of them that we know we can manage and we let the rest go through to the keeper because they are creating too many hassles for our businesses. They are causing us too many problems to have to deal with.’

Just like we saw with the pink batts fiasco, we are seeing cost overruns and we are seeing rorting of projects. The situation in New South Wales where you have projects that are costing multiple times the cost for equivalent types of structure is an absolute disgrace. That is the sort of rubbish you see when you start to inflate an industry the way that this program has done, just like we saw with the pink batts fiasco.

Government Senator:

Government senator interjecting—

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, senator, I understand it. I have spoken to the contractors. I hope you have the opportunity to do so.

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

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have spoken to a lot of people so I understand what is going on in this project and its management is just like the pink batts program. It will end up being a bigger problem for the government than the pink batts program was. This will be a major problem.

I will go to a couple of particular examples. With the Strahan primary school we see a school of 60 students receiving the same amount of money as a school in another state with only one student. The school thought that they were going to get about $900,000. They did their numbers and they got the fine detail of the program, but students at one level were only counted as a half, which put them just under the threshold. So they did not actually have the money to do what they wanted to do. The expectation was created in the school that they would get a certain thing, but the reality was that this school with 60 students got exactly the same amount of money as a school with one. This program will, as I have said, end up being a bigger problem than the pink batts debacle. (Time expired)

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

I am rather pleased that Senator Colbeck finally got around to actually giving us an example, for the first time after two speakers, but the trouble is that the example he has given has got nothing to do with their claims of rorting. What schools get in terms of money is determined by the actual program and the prerequisites of the program, the program guidelines; that is what people get. A school will either get the money or not, depending on the program guidelines. What those opposite are saying is that there is all this supposed rorting going on, but I really have to question the veracity of some of those claims, because Senator Bernardi did not give one example. He said to us, ‘The only thing I can say to you is to look in the Australian today.’ He did not talk about a particular school. He said, ‘Look in the Australian today.’ This is a matter of public importance that they have raised today and, given the extent of their research, the one example they could give is not even their example; it relies on the Australian. Let me tell you that over the last six or seven months the Liberal Party have been coming up with examples from the Australian about the education revolution which this government has embarked upon. Every time that those claims have been investigated they have been proved to be inaccurate or simply untrue. I notice that he did not refer to any previous Australian newspaper allegations, just one today. But I dare say that when that claim made by the Australian today is investigated we will find that is probably also inaccurate and untrue.

Senator Bernardi said he knows that contractors, builders, are charging two, three, four or five times as much as the actual building price. That is the claim that he makes; he makes the claim and then leaves it. Where is the evidence of that? Where are the examples of that? He gave no evidence and no examples. He then went on to say he has had numerous reports—and I will try to quote him as best I can; if I misquote him I will apologise later, but I wrote it down as he said it—of electricians being told to charge whatever they like so they can pay for their holiday home or pay for a boat to go fishing.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Come on! That is what he said. I know those over there are trying to gild the lily, but does anyone really think that public officials are going around to electricians saying, ‘Charge two, three, four or five times as much as it’s worth; in fact, charge anything you like to pay for a holiday house or to buy a boat’? He went on to say that other people are telling porky pies. Quite frankly, I think that is a porky pie, I think that is a fib and I question the veracity of those claims. If he had any examples of corruption like that, he would be in here naming the contractors, the people that are actually making those offers to those electricians—but he doesn’t. He comes in and he simply makes these things up to try to give the impression that there is actually rorting going on in this system. Anyone that sat through the Senate estimates program would know, after hours and hours and hours of questioning of the department, that this program is being monitored and that one of the things it is being monitored for is value for money. The prices that are being put in are challenged and questioned.

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

That’s rubbish.

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

That is not rubbish. Let me tell you, Senator Ferguson, that you were not in those Senate estimates hearings and, quite frankly, I am not sure you know what is going on with this program at all. I will be very pleased if you can come up with one example. Do not come and say, ‘Oh, yes, the Australian wrote something today,’ if that is the best you can do, because I do not think that is true.

Senator Bernardi said he was proudly at the Australian National University Liberal Club meeting the other day and a woman, who happened to be at the ANU Liberal Club—a member of the Liberal Party, I suspect—‘exposed’ all these rorts. Again, there were no examples of anything. It is about trying to build some sort of scandalous image of what is going on. Start giving some examples! If there are examples of fraud or corruption, who don’t you tell somebody about them? Quite frankly, in the biggest spending program that we have ever seen in this country to rejuvenate the education system, whereby every school in this country—and in every electorate—is getting a new building, if there is an example of any form of mismanagement, say so. Do you know what? There is a complaints mechanism in the department. And do you know what else? Every school principal has to sign off on the projects. They have to sign off on the plans. We have this nonsense that somehow people are getting buildings they did not want and people are getting bad value for money on things they did not want—when the school principal has to sign off these things. Quite frankly, Senator, the claims you make have no veracity, you do not come with any evidence, you do not come with any examples and the only school you are able to name was the school at Strahan, which Senator Colbeck named, and that was not about any rorting and was not about mismanagement. It is just that they did not get as much money as they would have liked, because they did not meet the program criteria, when the program criteria are there for everyone to see. It is all transparent and open. So really it is about saying, ‘We would have liked some more money.’

Another example which I found quite extraordinary, and it was the best example, was the one Senator Bernardi used about the outdoor coverage of a sandpit. He said, ‘Do you know what? A smaller covering for a sandpit that was only done a year or so ago only cost seven-tenths of what this one cost.’ If it were smaller and if it were a couple of years ago, one would expect that probably it did only cost seven-tenths, or 70 per cent, of what this one cost. There is a terrific example for you! There is massive mismanagement! After a couple of years for a bigger covering it actually cost 30 per cent more—well, go figure. You are wasting the Senate’s time with this ridiculous matter of public importance. You come here with two speakers that cannot provide an example of any rorts or mismanagement and just make these ridiculous claims which the evidence simply does not back up. None of the evidence backs them up.

Senator Colbeck wanted to tell us that this has the capacity to be a big problem. That can apply to anything. Is it a big problem? He wants to say it is a big problem, but if it is a big problem, please tell us why. Tell us why it is a big problem. It is a big problem because he wants it to be a problem. That is what he wants. He wants it to be a problem. If there are any examples in this massive building project process that we have undertaken in every school across the country, tell us.

I am not saying that every project has been managed to perfection. Anyone would be a fool to suggest that. But if you have any evidence that there is a problem, why don’t you go through and do the right thing? You say, ‘We’ve got many complaints.’ What are they; who is making them and why haven’t they complained to the right officials in the department so that they can be addressed?

I notice no-one on the education committee seems to be here running the case you are running—because they sat through the estimates hearings and they know the process. They know the tests that are being applied by the department at every level through this process. The evidence at Senate estimates is that in every case when these concerns were raised—whether they were raised through the Australian or through other forms—every one was resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. In nearly every case there was a basic misunderstanding of what people were supposed to get.

I get around too. I see the schools with the buildings that are going up and I see very happy principals and very happy school communities. I see very happy teachers, happy students and happy parents, because this is the biggest revolution in the education system that we are engaging upon in this country. I probably will not have time to get to the great things we are doing with computers, national curriculums and many other reforms.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please do!

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

I would love some more time, and if you want to give me some more time I would be happy to take it. I can talk about these things all day, because this is a good-news story for this government. After years and years of neglect under the previous government this government is modernising the education system. We are putting a national curriculum in place. We are putting computers in schools for students at the critical year levels, when they actually need them.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

They are in there. They are being rolled out. This is a great success story. It is great news. Why is it that you do not want school kids to have computers? Why don’t you want them to have school computers? Why don’t you want them to have new gyms, new common areas, new works being done and new buildings? All those things which update the environment in which students learn improve the educational outcome. Why is it that you do not want to do that? Why do you not want to improve the educational outcomes for our students? Why are you so anti-education in this country? Come and tell us which school should not get the building that has been allocated to them. Tell us which school should not get the computers.

This is the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party members on the other side of the chamber. When these things are being opened or when they are being built, those opposite come along, and the local member comes along, and stands there with the building in the background. They say: ‘Isn’t it wonderful? Can I get my photo taken with the new school building? Can I get my photo taken at the introduction of the new computers? I want to be associated with all that.’ But they come into this place and they say: ‘This is a terrible waste of money. We don’t think it is any good. We don’t want to be part of it.’ Well, you are nothing but hypocrites over there and you ought to get on board and start supporting the future of this country. The fundamentals of our future prosperity are based in education.

This government is improving the education outcomes at every level. It is something that you should have been doing in your wasted 11 years in government, but you completely ignored it. It is an absolute disgrace. We know—and I think the Australian community will know—that the Liberals cannot be trusted to look after the education needs of this country. Mr Abbott cannot be trusted to look after the education needs of this country. I think the longer these things are exposed and the longer these broad accusations, with no evidence and no examples, keep coming to the fore, the more the Australian people will start to see that they can have no trust in the Liberals or in Mr Abbott with respect to some of these things.

As part of the Australian government’s $42 billion Nation Building education stimulus plan, $16.2 billion is being invested over three years for the Building the Education Revolution program to fund infrastructure projects at primary and secondary schools. I just want to explain to you the size of this program and how exciting and beneficial it is going to be. As at 31 December 2009, the Building the Education Revolution is funding 24,009 infrastructure projects valued at $16.2 billion. That is the size of the program. Are those opposite suggesting that we should not be doing that? I think it is what they are suggesting, because all they want to do in here is to say no to everything. It does not matter whether there are good grounds to say no; they simply want to say no.

The economic stimulus plan one-year report released on 3 February 2010 shows that within 11 months around 24,000 projects were approved to build and upgrade learning spaces in 9,524 Australian schools. This is an extraordinary achievement. That is our achievement. That is our record. And all you want to do is to make up these hypothetical problems, and come in here and whinge and whine about the program. I am not surprised, because you have nothing to say about education. You have no vision for education. You have no vision for this country. You ignored education for the last 11 years. You ripped millions and millions of dollars out of the higher education sector. You did nothing about reform in the industry. You must sit there and squirm because for 11 years the opportunities were wasted and now you see us doing so much in two years. It must annoy you. It must frustrate you.

Instead of getting up in the Senate and just saying no, and whinging and whining and making things up, why don’t you sit down and think about some hard policy development? Why don’t you try and develop a policy position for a future education system in this country? Why don’t you come in here and have a serious debate with us about the future of education?

Have we heard or seen or sniffed a policy on education from that side of the chamber? No. Those opposite cannot be trusted with education. They do not want to have a policy because it is so easy just to say no. They come into this chamber and say no for the sake of saying no. That is all they are good at. They say no. They come in. They make things up. The veracity of some of the contributions in this place in this debate from that side of the chamber have to be seriously questioned. The porky-pies that Senator Bernardi referred to I think apply more to him than anyone else.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: I was loath to interrupt Senator Marshall but I would, while he is still in the chamber, like to express my concern that there was a very strong suggestion that I had told lies in this chamber. I reject that in its entirety. I would invite Senator Marshall to reconsider the language that he has used and to withdraw it, because the assertion is absolutely false.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: I listened very carefully to Senator Bernardi’s contribution. He accused the Prime Minister of this country of telling porky-pies and fibs. He did not consider that language inappropriate himself. The chair did not pull him up and I have simply used his own language back at him.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: the Prime Minister has repeatedly lied to the Australian people. That is not a point of order. Nothing I have said in this chamber is incorrect.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi, I will ask you to withdraw your aspersion on the member of the other place.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will withdraw it if it is unparliamentary, but I would ask Senator Marshall to withdraw the implication that I was telling lies.

The Acting Deputy President:

I will go back to that point of order.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: the first contribution by Senator Bernardi was not a point of order. The second contribution, from Senator Marshall, was not a point of order. The third contribution, the second that Senator Bernardi made, was not a point of order. I would ask you to rule that there are no points of order, that everyone ought to restrain themselves and that we ought to get on with the business.

The Acting Deputy President:

Thank you, Senator Evans. Senator Marshall, I was not in the chamber when Senator Bernardi made his comments. I did not catch the comments of Senator Bernardi that you are referring to. I have pulled up Senator Bernardi and he has withdrawn the statement with reference to the Prime Minister. I would ask you to reflect on what you said and, if you did make specific comments about Senator Bernardi and cast aspersions on him, to withdraw those specific aspersions regarding porky-pies and fibs, which I believe was your phrase.

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

I will, on the basis that you have asked me to. I just point out that it is surprising that he feels he is able to use those exact words against the Prime Minister in his contribution.

The Acting Deputy President:

Thank you, Senators. I remind senators  of the standing orders with respect to casting aspersions and using particular phrases on members of the Senate or the other place.

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

I too would suggest that Senator Marshall gets a tape and has a look at what he said. He may wish to change unions or else join the Showmen’s Guild, I am not quite sure which. Much of what Senator Marshall has said in this matter of public importance is certainly no defence of this government’s so-called education revolution. This is not an education revolution; it is a building revolution. To talk about the building of gyms, halls and a music centre—which is partly learning—as an education revolution is the greatest misnomer I have ever seen.

Senator Furner interjected and said, ‘Talk to any school principal and parents and friends association; they love it.’ Who would not love it? The government comes with buckets of money that you do not have to raise at your school and the expense of which you do not have to justify. People can put in an enormous quote for any building. Try to find one principal and one parents-and-friends association that would say, ‘I don’t want the money.’ It is government money borrowed from the people to put into this so-called education revolution program. I am not the slightest bit surprised that principals and parents-and-friends associations love it. They might not love it in 20 years time when their children are still paying for it. I am sure Senator Furner’s children will not want to pay for this in 20 years time. The way things are going, with the amount of money that this government is borrowing and the lack of scrutiny on the tender operations that have gone into this whole education or building revolution, has to be seen to be believed.

Senator Marshall said, ‘Give us some examples.’ I have one from my home town. I am not going to name the contractor, so the contractor will not suffer. I can tell you that the foundations for the building are down—that is as far as it has got. It is well in excess of $1 million, to the best of my knowledge. The school is going to build a music centre for some 30-odd students in a school of 260. It is an area school that used to have 600 students. They knocked over the newest building, which was the junior primary school, to put this hall there—and it has not yet been built. Only the other day, I was approached by a staff member who said to me, ‘When this hall is complete, we will have to close five classrooms in the school.’ I said, ‘That is ridiculous; this is supposed to be an extra hall.’ He said, ‘We will have to close five classrooms because there is no budget for cleaning an extra room in the school. We as a community cannot raise it.’ Once they have to clean the new hall that is being built under this education revolution, they will have to close five classrooms in the school.

That is what I call a revolution! It should be a revolution, because people know that, in doing this and setting up these new halls, schools are getting buildings that most of them never asked for. They will always say yes if the government is giving something away; they will never say, ‘No, I don’t want it.’ They will always say, ‘Yes, I want it.’ Many of them never asked for them in the first place and, because they were given a Christmas present, they said, ‘Yes, we will take it.’

That is only one part of the matter of public importance today. We have had a lot of people talking about the buildings that are being put up and there are so many examples of people working out a quote, adding a bit and then thinking, ‘The government is going to pay for this, so I’ll add a bit more and, just for fun, I’ll add a bit more,’ and they still get the job. There is no scrutiny whatsoever of whether or not value for money is being obtained from the builders of these halls. I know that in country South Australia there are buildings that are costing twice as much as an equivalent building would have cost prior to this money being offered.

But what are the other parts of this matter of public importance today? One part is about delivering and connecting computers in schools. I remember that a Labor election policy was to revolutionise classroom education by putting a computer on the desk of every upper secondary student. What a farce. There were going to be over a million computers. So far I think about 180,000 have been distributed. Some who were promised in June last year computers when they went home for Christmas holidays still have not received them. A computer on every desk! We will get to the next election and they still will not have their computers. I am absolutely sure about that.

What about the promise to establish trade training centres? The Rudd government promised new trade training centres built in Australia’s 2,650 secondary schools. How many have been built? I think one. I know there is one in the Prime Minister’s electorate.

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

That’s not true. I’ll give you the details on it.

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

Perhaps you can give us the details, Senator Collins, but it certainly is not 2,650. Not only that, they have changed what they are offering. The program was so underfunded that schools were forced to pool funds to build something that resembles a trade training centre and time share access with other schools. This means that there could be one trade centre for every 10 schools—not the 2,650 that were promised by the Prime Minister prior to the last election.

They say they are going to deliver improved learning outcomes. Well, can I tell you that in the education revolution there is not much in the buildings—or many of them that have been built—that is going to improve the standard of education in Australia. If in fact the government is so sure that they are getting good value for money in the money that is being spent through these buildings that are being built, I would say let the Auditor-General have a good look. Let him have a good look and you will be exposed. This government will be exposed for the enormous rorts that have taken place in this industry. It is all right for Senator Marshall to say: ‘Show us. Show us.’ There are not many people who want to endanger the livelihoods of some contractors who have successfully tendered for these operations. But I can tell you that when they speak to you on a one-to-one basis they can give you example after example.

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

I congratulate Senator Ferguson on this occasion because, having listened to three Liberal Party senators speak to this motion, with 2½ minutes remaining he actually got to the detail and the issues around the motion. Let me remind anyone listening to this debate what the motion actually suggests, and then I will try and insert some facts into this debate rather than irresponsible and scurrilous allegations never sustained by any evidence. We have listened to the claims of rorting and not heard one example. We have listened to the claims that we are inflating an industry. Senator Ferguson described these measures as a Christmas present.

I think we need to take a step back and look at what these measures were designed to deal with. Certainly the Labor Party went to the last election promising an education revolution because this particular area of social policy had been neglected for many, many years at both state and federal levels. We were supported in that policy and we were elected with it as a very clear policy commitment. Further to that, when the Rudd government was confronted with the global financial crisis, we identified education as a key area where we could stimulate the economy with long-term investment designed to bolster the skills and infrastructure and at the same time deliver jobs. This whole debate has ignored the stimulus aspect.

As a senator who has sat through the Senate inquiry into the stimulus measures and countless estimates hearings about the implementation of this program, I am absolutely amazed at the quality of what has been put into this debate by the opposition. It simply goes to show that Tony Abbott’s claim that they were finally going to start working as an opposition is simply vacuous. Why haven’t you had contribute to this debate those senators that have been asking questions about this program in Senate estimates? Why hasn’t there been some quality about the detail in this discussion? Why is Senator Brett Mason not contributing to this discussion as the shadow parliamentary secretary? Why do we simply have baseless and inaccurate claims proffered? The comparison between these programs and the difficulties that we are having with the insulation sector are ludicrous. The suggestion that what the Rudd government has been able to do in schools compares to the difficulties in insulation is just laughable.

This is another example of the scaremongering—and fairly flippant, glib scaremongering at that—that the opposition continues to try and peddle out. Nothing has changed under Tony Abbott as leader—nothing at all. I had my office go back and look at the last time scaremongering was attempted in this area, because I could remember back in November last year exactly the same allegations being raised. As I said, I sat through countless Senate estimates hearings and heard case after case examined but at the end of the day resolved without the difficulties that were being put forward.

Senator Arbib highlighted this point back in November in question time. He indicated that, on the last stocktake that I am aware of that occurred here, there had been only 60 complaints, with one unresolved complaint, out of 24,000 schools. I am sure those figures have changed between then and now, because, yes, in a very complex delivery process there are going to be ongoing difficulties. There are going to be cost overruns. There are going to be time delays. And yes, indeed, in any major program there is going to be some degree of rorting. That is why it is the responsibility of any person in public life, if they are aware of rorting, to report it.

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is what we are trying to do.

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

They are trying to report it, is the interjection. This debate has not reported any rorting at all. I challenge the opposition to report the detail of any of the rorting that you claim is occurring. But, no: we have no facts, no detail of any of these matters. The only case that was raised whilst I was here was raised by Senator Ferguson and was somewhat amusing.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought you were here for all of them.

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

No; I was not here for all of yours.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You said that at the start.

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

No; I did not. I said ‘from what I’d heard’. Senator Bernardi, you are being a little bit precious, but that is fine; I am used to that. Let us go back to what I was about to address with respect to Senator Ferguson.

Senator Joyce interjecting—

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

Order, Senator Joyce.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw the comment I made.

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

I missed it at this distance; perhaps another time, Senator. Senator Ferguson gave us one example. He said that he had spoken to a teacher, and he said he was aware of a school where they had knocked over one of their newest buildings. He kept talking in terms of ‘they’: ‘they’ did not have arrangements for cleaning. Many of these cases are quite similar to the other types of cases that arose in questioning in Senate estimates that, as I indicated, Senator Arbib was able to demonstrate had been easily resolved. The ‘they’ he is referring to here is the school community. If an existing structure was demolished, the school community chose to do that. If one particular teacher decides to have a chat with Senator Ferguson, and that is our only example of rorting, I wonder about the priorities that the opposition has at the moment that lead us to devoting our time to this debate.

Again, we should go to the facts. Senator Ferguson certainly attempted in his last 2½ minutes to address the motion, which was a good start, but, again, he did not stick to the facts. This motion relates to the digital education revolution. We committed to provide funding to education authorities to achieve a one-to-one ratio by 31 December 2011, and we are on track to deliver that commitment. I am extremely tired of listening to the opposition seeking to inflate the time lines that were provided by the government with these measures. Some of those time lines related to how we saw the economic stimulus roll out; some of the other time lines related to our broader education revolution policies. But of course this opposition has forgotten the global financial crisis, because the stimulus was so successful for the Rudd government. Australia was the only country that did not go backward in recession, and that was because of the proactive actions we took in measures such as this, where the public at large accepts that the federal government has stepped in and helped keep Australians in employment while at the same time considerably improving the infrastructure available to them in schools. How that is described is somewhat amusing, too: the notion that it is just school halls and that no educational advantage will arise from these investments—just school halls. Talk to any teacher about the advantage for a school of having, firstly, a space in that school environment where the whole school can come together—and this is new for many schools—and, secondly, a space that is available for multi-purpose use. Enormous educational advantages can come out of that.

But let us go back to some of the other facts and time lines that have been exaggerated or inflated to suit the opposition’s purposes. The Trade Training Centres in Schools Program was, if I recall correctly, the only other issue that Senator Ferguson sought to raise. Let me go back to the facts in this area. Under a 10-year $2.5 billion Trade Training Centres in Schools Program, Australia’s 2,650 secondary schools are each eligible to receive between half a million dollars and $1.5 million. Since the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program commenced, the Australian government has approved $809.9 million to fund 230 projects benefiting 734 schools. Of the 230 approved projects, 150 involved schools working together to establish joint facilities. I do not really see why joint facilities are such a problem. There are 110 projects underway to construct or refurbish trade training centres, and 46 projects have commenced construction. There are also five trade training centres for which construction has been completed.

A number of schools are delivering qualifications, some in anticipation of their new trade training centres being completed late this year. Approximately 70 trade training centres are scheduled to be completed by the end of this year. The estimated time frame for building a trade training centre is between 12 and 18 months, depending on the project’s size and complexity. This is consistent with the time taken to construct Australian technical colleges. To choose to continue to try to inflate the time lines to attack the government and misrepresent our policy does not stand the opposition in any stead but fails to deliver on what Tony Abbott said his new leadership would provide.

This is not a genuine opposition. This is not even an informed opposition. You should take the time to inform yourselves of the facts of the policy and deal with the criticism of it in an accurate and appropriate fashion. The scaremongering was something that we were told would be of the past. The pretence or belief that you were still in government was also something that we were told would be of the past. We were going to have a strong and vibrant opposition. I really wonder where that genuine new opposition is.

There is no question that Building the Education Revolution was an ambitious program and that we had taken on with our federation an enormous challenge to deliver this program. But we thought it was incredibly important during the global financial crisis to escalate work in this area and help maintain and deliver jobs. The longer term investment in education is, of course, critically important as well. One of the reasons education was chosen was that it had established processes for delivering this type of infrastructure, but we never pretended that it was going to be a song, that it was going to be easy. We knew that we were dealing with multilayers of bureaucracy but we were delivering during the global financial crisis and we were protecting Australian jobs.

There is the suggestion that this was a Christmas present and that value for money has not been achieved. On one part we accept that if we had sat on our hands and examined our navel for a little while, we could have thought up better ways to do certain things. We are happy to accept that. But then, again, we might have been just too late to protect the jobs that we needed to protect. We may well have ended up in a recession in Australia. But, no, we decided that timely and effective action was required last year, and that is what the Rudd government delivered.

Most people, when you discuss with them the problems and the difficulties in delivering this program, understand the broader circumstances that relate to it, and they are incredibly pleased to receive what the opposition tells us does not really deliver—an educational advantage. They understand that, yes, there will be issues with powerlines, that there are water tank problems and that there are all sorts of complexities involved in delivering them. I can remember the principal of one of my schools saying to me: ‘But, gee, that training package that was produced for principals was tremendous. It helped us understand how to manage some of these difficulties.’ I have not met one person similar to what you have characterised as highlighting support for this very, very empty motion.

I suggest that, on future occasions, if you are going to come forward in the chamber in debates such as this, you provide some evidence of your claims and, indeed, that the senators contributing to the debate actually address their own motion. (Time expired)

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate Senator Collins on her contribution to this debate because at least she ran the government lines to some extent—the typical spin that the government puts out about the Building the Education Revolution and the other aspects of it. They go out and tell people that they are delivering in accordance with their promise, particularly the one about the global financial crisis and the need to take action quickly. I also thank her for her acknowledgment that the government admits that it has not got it all right, but what could it do? ‘We needed to take action so quickly and the global financial crisis was upon us. We needed to get in there straightaway. So how about we just take $16 billion that we do not actually have yet and go off and spend it on new school halls and libraries, whether the schools need them or not, because that is a great way of getting $16 billion out of the hands of government and into the hands of the contractors who are going to do all the work and, therefore, we can save all these thousands of jobs.’

Senator Collins, it is great that you acknowledge that the need for speed has resulted in problems, because certainly it has resulted in problems. Today’s debate is not about the global financial crisis. I am aware of your comments about what our motion actually is. In terms of addressing the global financial crisis, you might be interested to know that, at the last economics estimates, Treasury officials acknowledged that there were other ways that money could have been spent in order to deliver the same outcomes. Any outcomes that were achieved by the response to the global financial crisis could have been achieved by any number of options, and they did not need to include this one. Can I tell you that it should not have included this one in all sorts of ways—certainly not in the way it was delivered. This is where we come to the problems that we are highlighting today, which is that the education revolution is not being delivered in a timely, efficient and cost-effective manner.

Both Senator Collins and Senator Marshall asked for examples, and I am conscious that Senator Bernardi did provide a very good example, as did my colleague Senator Ferguson. One example that I would like to highlight from my home state of Tasmania is that of Wesley Vale Primary School. This school is situated between Devonport and the commuter town of Port Sorell, which is a rapidly growing area. I think it is probably one of the fastest growing areas in Tasmania. Wesley Vale school has been allocated $900,000 for a new school hall. It sounds fantastic. As noted by Senator Collins, school halls are fantastic things. However, the interesting thing about this particular school is that down the road, in Port Sorell, which is, as I mentioned, one of the fastest growing areas in Tasmania, both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party at a state level have promised to build a brand new school. This is just a couple of kilometres away from Wesley Vale school, which is basically situated in the middle of a farming area, with nothing around it except farms. A few of the farm kids go to Wesley Vale Primary School but the vast majority of the kids who go to it come from Port Sorell, which does not have a school. Regardless of the outcome of the election this Saturday, whoever wins government is going to build a new school at Port Sorell within two years.

Certainly the parents and friends of Wesley Vale have raised this issue with the government, but they have been told, no, they have to build the school. They have to take the $900,000 and build it. The reality is that, within two years or soon after, that school is going to be closed. What a waste of taxpayers’ money. This is $900,000 that we probably do not have yet. We will probably sell some bonds—Senator Joyce is in the chamber—and raise that money from China. We will get that $900,000 and spend it on a new school hall for a school at Wesley Vale which does not need it and which will almost certainly be closed within two years or soon after. And Labor says it is not a waste of money.

The sole defence of any of these examples that I heard from either of the senators who spoke on behalf of the government today was that all the principals in the schools take the money. They all accept it, so therefore it has to be good. But if you turned up and offered somebody a brand-new car, saying to them, ‘In return for the brand-new car, we are going to take your two-year-old one and scrap it.’ They would say, ‘That sounds great! It’s a newer model and a better car. I’ll take it.’ Would it matter to most of those people that you paid twice as much as it was worth? If you are offering to give them a new car and to take away their old one, they are going to take it. It is not really a defence to say that they took it. It is human nature that when schools are offered brand-new buildings they are going to say yes. That is quite apart from situations like Wesley Vale Primary School, where they said, ‘No, we don’t want it’, but were told they had to have it anyway.

Related to that was the point that not many people are complaining, that they have received only 60 complaints. It is probably worth noting that there are terms in the contract for the building work at all of these schools that say that if the principal or anybody associated with the building makes a public statement then they lose the money. I have already established that, of course, if you offer them the money they are going to take it. But, if they make any public statements about the need for it, or the fact that it is a waste of money because they have new classrooms and do not need new ones, then they lose the money. So there is a great built-in disincentive not to make public statements or comment on projects which would be inefficient and not cost-effective.

Then there are concerns, particularly for contractors but also in many schools, about payback and the fear of what would happen to them if they did speak out—not so much in terms of the project but in career advancement and so on. When you are dealing with Labor this is a real concern. I am talking about my own observations in my home state. So 60 complaints in those circumstances is actually pretty high, I would suggest, and demonstrates the courage in the circumstances of the 60 people who have complained.

I would like to have talked about computers in schools because, quite clearly, this is another case where Labor has failed dismally to deliver its promise. I will read a quote from Kevin Rudd’s campaign launch on 14 November 2007:

... Labor will undertake a ground-breaking reform by providing for every Australian secondary school student in years nine to 12 with access to their own computer at school.

Quite clearly, they have failed dismally to deliver this: a tiny percentage of students have computers.

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

Order! The time for this discussion has now concluded.