Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak on the circumstances of the Hawker Park Primary School in the electorate of Cowan and the effects of the state government’s influence on the Investing in Our Schools Program—an influence that has undermined the benefits that IOSP would have provided to the school. In Western Australia the state government made it mandatory for most Investing in Our Schools projects to be project managed by a contractor of the state Department of Housing and Works.

Hawker Park Primary School wanted a concrete slab as a stage, a curtain system, some light and sound equipment, a storage area and some enhancements to the undercover area within which the stage would be constructed. In 2006 the school had an estimate prepared by the state’s contractor. The state government imposed their contractor on WA schools because, I am told, they were experienced and could properly advise the schools on construction projections. I make the point that parents and friends of the school, regardless of qualifications, experience, licences or insurance were barred from assisting the school. In the case of Hawker Park, the contractor was required to give the estimate and manage the project. I should also mention that the school was obliged to pay the contractor 11 per cent of the total final fee for the works—20 per cent of which was up-front.

Based on the experienced advice of the contractor, I myself filled out the application for the school, with the estimated cost of the project being $68,000 and a 10 per cent contingency of $6,800, which totalled $74,800. The contractor’s cut of the funds was to be $8,228 as their fee and that was added on top, to make it $83,028. I emphasise that that $8,200-odd would not be spent on a project for the benefit of the children of Hawker Park Primary School but would go to the state’s middlemen. The contractors wanted 20 per cent of their cut within 30 days of the estimate, and that fee was $1,645.

The school received the grant from the former government in February 2007, yet it took a further 11 months for the project to go to tender. Why? It was because the state government’s contractor was unable to manage this project. They would not deal with the P&C, who had won the grant; they would only deal with the principal, and I understand that the principal had great trouble contacting the contractor. When the tender process finally came to deliver prices, the lowest price was $217,750. The state government’s contractor blamed the huge increase in costs on the time taken since the estimate was provided. Independent sources in Western Australia indicate that the cost increases per year amount to around 12 per cent to 13 per cent—not around 200 per cent in two years, as was the case in the Hawker Park Primary project. Sadly, the school now cannot possibly make up the shortfall through the standard method of fundraising in state schools—that is, chocolate drives and sausage sizzles. The sum of $143,000 is just too much to try to get.

The main point I wish to make here is that the handling of the Investing in Our Schools Program by the state government’s middlemen is a disgrace. The contractors have the overwhelming appearance of being incompetent. Perhaps their estimate was hopelessly inadequate but, whatever the cost, it is certain that the contractors are not up to managing projects such as this. What they have done, however, by intention or incompetence, is to kill off a project that would have real benefits for the children in my electorate, so I am not very happy. The contractors will walk away with their fee and the school will not get what it needs. Perhaps that was mission accomplished for the Carpenter Labor government in Western Australia.

Given that the new government in Canberra refuse to make state governments responsible for their mismanagement in the name of ending the blame game, I call upon the federal government to cover the cost of the shortfall in funds brought about by state Labor’s insistence on using these contractors. The bill is $142,950. So if the new federal government are actually interested in supporting schools and infrastructure projects such as this and if they are interested in supporting what parents think are important projects then I ask them to cover the shortfall now. There are more cases just like this and more shortfalls to be covered. I look forward at a future date to presenting the costs of other examples of the state government’s— (Time expired)