Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. I refer the minister to her $1.7 billion blow-out in the Julia Gillard memorial school halls program, and the amendment to the program guidelines.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The phrasing in that question makes it out of order.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hockey interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Joe, in your dreams it might be called that but it is not called that. It would, strictly, place the question out of order. The member for Sturt will rephrase his question.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To rephrase the question, Mr Speaker: I refer the minister to her $1.7 billion blow-out in the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program, and the amendment to the program guidelines in the last 10 days to require project managers to seek value for money in delivering these projects. Why has it taken six months and, potentially, billions of dollars of unnecessary waste for the government to pay lip-service to the concept of value for money?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am trying to help them, Mr Speaker, but the last part of the question was also out of order.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have said often in this place, if there was a strict interpretation of the standing orders to do with questions, many questions would be taken out of order. I understand the point that the Leader of the House is making to me, but I will allow the question to continue.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on the point of order and your ruling: what you have indicated in the past is that a point of order must be raised at the time at which a question is asked. If it is out of order, I would ask you to ask the shadow minister to rephrase the question or to rule it out of order.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I have allowed the question.

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

I do genuinely thank the shadow minister for his question, because it enables me to explain to the House some facts about this program which I believe the shadow minister either may not understand or may not be repeating accurately. The shadow minister is certainly right to say that the government has increased allocations to the Building the Education Revolution program by $1.5 billion. We promised the Australian people—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The question has been asked.

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

We promised the Australian people we would deliver $42 billion worth of economic stimulus, and we are delivering $42 billion of economic stimulus. The Building the Education Revolution program required an additional allocation from that $42 billion because of two factors in our Primary Schools for the 21st Century program.

Factor No. 1 was that at the time that this program was costed it was impossible for the government to have the actual 2009 enrolment statistics because it was before the commencement of the school year. The enrolment statistics matter because this is a program correlated to school size. So, as school sizes change and the number of schools changes, obviously financing in the program changes. Then, the second and overwhelmingly largest factor in terms of the costings was that when this program was announced the program costings were done on the basis that uptake was likely to be 90 per cent.

Opposition Member:

An opposition member—What? Free money!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You said every school!

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The question having been allowed, I thought that the House might wish to listen to the response.

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

I hear the opposition jeer at that, and the opposition is obviously thinking to itself: ‘Why would you model a percentage uptake of a universal entitlement program in schools? Why would you do that?’ It really strikes me as passing strange that any member of the opposition would jeer about that, because when the opposition was in government it had the Investing in Our Schools Program and—you guessed it—it was modelled at an 80 per cent take-up rate. It was badged as a universal entitlement to schools and it was modelled at an 80 per cent take-up rate.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

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

The shadow minister says—he is priceless; I am very fond of him—‘And there wasn’t a blow-out.’ Yes, there was a blow-out. There was a blow-out when your deputy leader was Minister for Education, Science and Training.

Let me explain to you the nature of the blow-out. Having costed the program at 80 per cent, more schools wanted the money than the costing allowed. So what happened was that the then minister for education, currently Deputy Leader of the Opposition, went back for an additional $181 million. That is the ‘blow-out’, if this terminology is going to be used, in the cost of Investing in Our Schools—18 per cent. It was a blow-out of 18 per cent, presided over by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition whilst the current Leader of the Opposition was a member of cabinet. I cannot recall whether the current shadow minister was in the ministry or trying to get into the ministry, but it was a blow-out of 18 per cent.

Of course, percentage wise, this is a far greater cost variation than anything that has happened with Building the Education Revolution. The then minister for education, now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, had to go back to the budget and come back out with $181 million, whereas this is a reallocation within an envelope that we promised the Australian people—$42 billion. So it just amazes me that any member of the opposition would have been out criticising a costing assumption of a 90 per cent take-up for Primary Schools for the 21st Century when they sat on the government benches and put out a program with an 80 per cent take-up and a blow-out of 18 per cent and then had to fix it.

Then, of course, on the question of fixing that blow-out, what did they do? They changed the guidelines to cut the entitlement to—you guessed it—government schools. Schools had been able to apply, government and non-government, for $150,000 and then, to manage the consequences of the 80 per cent take-up rate assumption, the former government changed the guidelines so government schools could only get $50,000 less as a maximum.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister was asked about why it took six months to include value for money in the guidelines. She might need to take—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. Whilst there is a differing opinion about the extent to which the question was in order, it is true that the question was as wide ranging as I will allow. The response from the Deputy Prime Minister is relevant to the question.

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

What they then did was cut the entitlement to government schools. In stark contrast, this is a government that said it would deliver $42 billion of stimulus to support jobs today whilst building the infrastructure for tomorrow. Within that $42 billion stimulus we have made an extra allocation to Primary Schools for the 21st Century because it is going gangbusters and more primary schools want to be involved in it than were originally costed for. We costed with a greater uptake assumption than that used by the previous government in its Investing in Our Schools Program and, unlike the previous government, we do not discriminate against government schools. We are supporting schools right around the nation so we can support jobs right around the nation. This is about jobs. It is about infrastructure for the future. It is a real pity that the current opposition, caught in this mire of hypocrisy, cannot see its way clear to just supporting the program.