Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share 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.