Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Education. Can the minister explain why a Bairnsdale building firm has been offered the opportunity to tender for so-called Building the Education Revolution projects at Foster, San Remo and Wonthaggi, up to three-hours drive way, but was excluded from tendering for a local project less than three minutes away? Why won’t the minister do the right thing and refer the waste and mismanagement of this program to the Auditor-General?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. I say to the member that I am very happy to look into the specifics that he has raised with me. I will do that, and I am happy to take any details from him that he may have. The system in Victoria for the provision of projects is that the Victorian government bundles projects and they then have head contractors who contract with local contractors to deliver the projects. I am very happy to look at the circumstances the member raises. Obviously I want to be very clear with members in the House and people generally that this is an economic stimulus program to build the infrastructure of tomorrow and to invest in and support Australian jobs today. Not every building company that wants to work on Building the Education Revolution will end up with work. Obviously, though, if Building the Education Revolution were not there, the people who are working on those projects would not have their jobs supported by this program. So what I would ask the member to reflect on is whether or not he thinks that this work should be available to support jobs. If he thinks the answer to that is yes then he might want to reflect on why it is that he voted against the program. If we were delivering nothing—as the member voted for and as the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister believe—then he and I would not be talking today about whose jobs are being supported by the program; there would be no jobs supported by the program. His political party’s strategy is to support no jobs through this program.

I also say to the member opposite—and I understand he was not in the last parliament but he may want to look at the Hansard of the last parliament—that, before he makes calls about referring things to the Auditor-General he may want to reflect on the regional rorts scandal of the former government and the findings of the Auditor-General about that. He may want to reflect on the performance of the then Prime Minister in supporting the ministers who were involved in the regional rorts scandal, including National Party ministers. He may want to ask himself the question: should he, when he looks at the program of Building the Education Revolution, be taking the view that this is a program for all schools around the country? We have not paid any regard as to whether or not the schools are in my electorate, one of my colleagues’ electorates, a Liberal electorate, a National Party electorate or an Independent member’s electorate. We have said that every school should benefit under Building the Education Revolution.

I say this to the member opposite: the track record of his political party and the former government was not to benefit places around the country; it was to benefit places they saw political advantage in. If he is under any doubt about that then the Auditor-General can help him with that conclusion, because the Auditor-General dealt with it fulsomely. So, on the question of audit reports, the one I would be recommending to members opposite for reading tonight is the one about their conduct in government.