Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Senator Carr) and the Minister for Employment Participation (Senator Arbib) to questions without notice relating to the Building the Education Revolution program.

You would think that if a government was spending $14.3 billion on schools, the school communities would be happy. But they are not. In fact they are outraged. The people that really matter here—the parents, teachers and indeed even the education unions—say the Building the Education Revolution is fast unravelling. The government thought they could spend $14.3 billion and the next election would come to them. They thought that the stakeholders would be docile and no-one would care. The stakeholders do care. The kids, their parents, teachers and even the unions think this project is a waste of money. That is the problem.

I very, very rarely quote the Australian Education Union but today they called for a review:

The Australian Education Union today called for a transparent review of the implementation of the Building the Education Revolution (BER) program to examine issues that have arisen with the first rounds of implementation.

The AEU Federal President, Mr Gavrielatos, said the review should investigate, among other things, whether state and territory governments are maintaining their own effort in school maintenance and capital and the extent to which they are charging administration costs and if costs are being inflated.

“It is about ensuring that in the interests of our students and school communities, we realise the full potential of this significant investment in school infrastructure and the full economic stimulus benefit,” he said.

Even the union movement is not happy. Even they know this is not a good spend.

Who is happy? The federal government are happy because there are some photo opportunities. They are really happy. Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard put on the hard hats and the high-visibility vests and run around with bulldozers. The federal government is pretty happy because it makes for great photo opportunities. I understand that even state governments are pretty happy because they are creaming off the largesse. They are thinking, ‘Great. We will not have to look after state schools because the Commonwealth government is going to foot the bill.’ The only people happy here are the federal government and the state government. The kids, their parents, the teachers and even the education union think this whole project is a dog.

It is a strange thing. There were two principal aims of the Building the Education Revolution that the government put forward. Firstly, it was to create jobs. And yet they did not even ask how many jobs would be created by each individual project. That was not one of the conditions of attendance. Secondly, it was to enhance educational outcomes. But what have we learned over the last few days? We have learned that there is insufficient flexibility in the Building the Education Revolution. This is not about schools getting what they want; this is about state bureaucrats giving to schools what they think they should have. And do not believe me; believe Mr Harry Grossek, the principal of Berwick Lodge Primary School. On page 2 of the Australian today he says:

Our option was a gymnasium complex, I was told. It didn’t matter that we already had a perfectly suitable gymnasium.

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

It gets better.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it gets worse; it gets much worse. He goes on to call them the ‘notorious templates’—that lovely whiff of central planning that I know Senator Carr loves—designed by state governments. So, in fact, there is insufficient flexibility in this scheme and, worse, there is overcharging. This is much more expensive than it should be. Mr Grossek goes on to say:

Furthermore, never have we been able to access any real cost figures for the now notorious templates. Independent valuations we obtained made a mockery of the—

department of education’s—

claims about the value of the templates. All could be built for embarrassingly lower costs than the notional figures.

What have we got here? We have a waste of money. We do not have the best spend at all, we do not even have a good spend; we have a shocking spend. This is the worst possible way to spend $14.7 billion. The Building the Education Revolution is a shambles.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of the answers. I listened to the rhetoric from the other side of the chamber and I am absolutely gobsmacked that the senators on that side have the audacity to scream at government senators. I am referring to Senator Fisher from South Australia. All I could hear from her was the rant, ‘Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs.’ I think that is absolutely wonderful, because it is a four-letter word that that side of the chamber really find offensive. We have been talking about that since November 2007; we are all about jobs. I wonder if Senator Fisher had the same passion for that four-letter word and ‘Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs’ when she worked for former industrial relations minister Peter Reith.

I want to take this opportunity to quote a very fine example of the education revolution—the part about the government building infrastructure in schools. I must say that, of the electorates in Perth, I have not had one school, whether it be primary school, high school, religious school, private school or any other school, ring me and say that they are not happy with the government’s Building the Education Revolution. In fact, at every school I have gone to, whether to watch children working on their new computers or to open a new building, I was thanked profusely by not only the principals and the teachers but also the parents and citizens associations.

Here is the example. The Sunday Telegraph on 5 April this year had an article in relation to a quote obtained by Bobs Farm Public School in New South Wales for a building. The department provided Bobs Farm Public School with a quote. The school was told they could have the new classroom built for whatever amount of money it was that the department was quoting but, lo and behold, the school got another quote which came in substantially lower. I think it is important to note that the New South Wales Department of Education and Training looked into this quote to check it out. One must adhere to the basic business principle that you must always check the fine print.

When the education department went through the contract there were number of, I would say, important things that were missing from the quote. I will list what they are—and I notice the other side have all of a sudden gone quiet for some reason. The quote did not include any carpet. It did not include any foundations. It did not include a ceiling and—I hear the laughs coming but this next one is absolutely fair dinkum—the quote did not include any furniture. Not only that, it did not include connection to a sewerage system, stormwater drains or electricity. As part of the quote, there was absolutely no mention of site preparation. I am not a builder—and I am being serious about this; this did actually happen—but I have worked out that there are a few important things that you need if you are going to build a building. And there was no quote for demolition and sloping work. The quote did not include a railing on the balcony to stop children from falling off.

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

In a school!

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, in a school.

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

Order! Senator Collins, you are in breach of standing orders, as you well know, standing over there. So I ask you to either take a seat or leave the chamber.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can concur with Senator Collins because it does sound unbelievable, but this is fair dinkum.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash interjecting—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The quote finished with a statement that the company—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is important that everyone hears this, and I hope the senators opposite from Western Australia—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I am not one who is sensitive to interjections, but Senator Cormann could do us the courtesy of taking his seat in the chamber if he is going to interject.

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

I do uphold that point of order. I am sorry I did not hear the interjection, otherwise I would have made the comment myself.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope that Senator Cormann and Senator Cash, the Liberal senators from Western Australia, listen very carefully to this. The quote finished with this, Mr Deputy President—and I am keeping a straight face as I am looking at you and quoting this: the building company recommended that the completed building be tied down. I kid you not! It needs to be tied down because it has no ceiling and has no foundations. It actually said that it should be tied down. Wonderful! A great place for children! The only building I know of that would need tying down is a tent—and I am quite happy to be corrected if Senator Cash or Senator Cormann can tell me of another building that you need to tie down. (Time expired)

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of answers by Senator Arbib. The opposition’s concerns in relation to the Jobs Australia tender initially related to its design and efficacy, as Senator Arbib accurately quoted from the Senate hearing into the tender arrangements. Senator Arbib and I keep an eye on what each other says, and he was accurate in saying that that was my concern a week or so back. Our initial concern was principally that 100 per cent of provider services were put to tender, that the weighting for past performance was only 30 per cent, that many providers with great track records had lost contracts and that 47 per cent of job seekers have to find new providers and new case managers. They were our main concerns. The Minister for Employment Participation assured the Senate that all was well, that job seekers would be fine and that providers who lost work would be looked after. The minister cited in particular the Agency Adjustment Fund to assist those who had lost their tenders.

There is one problem with that: there was only ever funding for 34 organisations. Of that $3.5 million of funding allocated, there was funding for only 34 organisations. But we discovered in estimates that at that time 110 applications had already been received. The department has emailed the providers, helpfully telling them:

Dear Provider

Thank you for your application for funding …

The department received many more applications than anticipated. The assessment process is quite complex …

… This has meant that the original time line … is unable to be met.

It has been oversubscribed. There are far more providers than there are dollars to assist. So the minister’s assurance on that front was completely worthless.

But a greater concern was unearthed yesterday by Dr Southcott in the other place. He discovered that phone calls were placed between a tenderer and the former minister’s office during the probity period—during the tender process itself. Why is this of concern? You might think it is quite reasonable for a tenderer to make a few harmless inquiries of a minister’s office during a tender process. There is a document called the ‘Communication protocol for dealing with existing service providers and tenderers’, which states very specifically that there are:

• Those who may be in positions that the public could perceive as having the power to influence the operation of the purchasing process …

The people identified in that position include ministers and their staff. This document is very clear. It says:

• The website, Hotline and email address are the primary mechanisms for communications relating to purchasing matters. All persons, and in particular those who have been identified as being in positions of potential influence, are required to refer or direct any purchasing related enquiries to the Hotline, website or email address.

It goes further. It requires that:

• details of any approaches by or on behalf of an individual Tenderer or Tenderers will be fully documented—

that is, fully documented by the person who receives the approach—and that:

• communications or conduct suspected of involving a breach of the probity of the purchasing process or involving illegality will be investigated.

So it is quite clear from the communication protocol that the minister’s office was in breach.

The minister’s office put out a statement yesterday saying that the contact was ‘logistical in nature’ and therefore was not required to be referred to the department. Well, the protocol does not have an exemption for discussions of a logistical nature. The protocol says that if there is communication from a tenderer to a minister or to a minister’s office it needs to be documented; more than that, it needs to be advised to the probity adviser. It also says that any tenderer who approaches a minister or the minister’s office should be referred immediately to the hotline or the website. This was entirely inappropriate.

When the minister was asked today whether he had received any advice from the probity adviser in relation to this communication he refused to answer. There is only one thing to do in this situation, which is to call for a full, complete public inquiry, and Minister Arbib should do that today.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Rudd government took a clear plan to the Australian people to reform the outdated, one-size-fits-all Job Network system. Those opposite are not interested in providing appropriate services for job seekers. The minister today in question time indicated that the independent external probity adviser gave an unqualified sign-off on the tender process. He said that on a number of occasions. But those opposite just do not get it.

The legacy of those opposite was a system bogged down with red tape and incapable of dealing with Australia’s chronic skills shortage, yet those opposite are happy to sit over there and take pot shots at the government over the new Job Services Australia, basically playing politics for politics’ sake. It is worth noting that at the end of the day it is those opposite who presided over a failing system for over 10 years and took the politically easy decision to roll over 95 per cent of business in the last tender of the Job Network in 2006, initiating no improvements. That is right—those opposite were too busy revelling in the resources boom, focusing on short-term, populist spending to help them get re-elected, to worry about making the tough decisions for the future prosperity of Australia.

On the other hand, on this side of the chamber we have a clear plan to reform the nation’s employment services by moving seven separate employment service programs into a one-stop shop which will more effectively assist job seekers to find work and keep work. The Rudd government is making a $4.9 billion investment in the new Job Services Australia program. That is a $1 billion increase which will offer job seekers a range of integrated services. The new integrated Job Services Australia will deliver more comprehensive and personalised assistance for job seekers, allowing them to gain new skills and become more job ready. In the current economic climate we are experiencing the greatest economic challenges since the Great Depression and, as we continue to see labour markets contract, it is imperative that we have a job services system that is adequately equipped to assist job seekers with training and development and, ultimately, finding work. After all, we have seen those opposite preside over 10 years of laziness and playing populist politics.

We have seen a chronic skills shortage developed in the Australian labour market. This has severely hampered the productivity of the Australian economy and has affected our ability to drive new growth. In fact, the former Minister for Employment Participation, the Hon. Brendan O’Connor, highlighted that unless something is done in the area of qualified workers we could be looking at a shortfall of up to 240,000 workers by 2016. Indeed, the legacy of those opposite is a bogged down employment service which helps neither businesses which require skilled workers or job seekers themselves trying to gain the necessary skills for employment. That is why we have acted and from 1 July the Rudd Labor government will introduce more than 2,000 Job Services Australia sites across Australia. It is worth noting that that is up from the 1,800 which exist under the current system—200 more sites. These sites will provide more resources dedicated to the most disadvantaged job seeker, including those who are homeless. The new services will also develop the Employment Pathway Plan, which details the services tailored to a job seeker to better help them secure employment. In conjunction, we will also operate an Employment Pathway Fund, which will allow employment service providers to purchase goods and services a job seeker may need to help them tackle barriers to employment.

This government is committed to providing people with the appropriate skills; that is why the new Job Services Australia will have a renewed focus on work experience programs such as the Work for the Dole and Green Corps schemes, which provide job seekers with skills and experience to help them get jobs. We will also offer up to 18,900 small business training places under the Productivity Places Program to help address the skills shortage problem by ensuring job seekers are better trained and ready to work, as well as a $41 million innovation fund for projects that address barriers of employment for groups of highly disadvantaged job seekers. With a new, integrated one-stop shop for job seekers, Job Services Australia will provide better and more specialised services. (Time expired)

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers given by Senators Carr and Arbib in this chamber this afternoon, which related respectively to the school building program of some $14.7 billion and the employment services tender of some $4.9 billion, and to comment regretfully at the gross mismanagement of the expenditure of Australian taxpayer funds in both of these programs. Only today have we read of a very senior principal of one of Australia’s schools—one obviously towards the end of his career—who out of severe frustration has come out and drawn our attention to the bungling, bullying and dubious accounting practices of this school building program. One can only imagine his courage in so doing and in requesting so many of his colleagues to join him. He has drawn attention to the fact that the state authorities are hiving off vast sums of money. He draws attention to the fact that the funding of school capital programs in Australia is a states program and not a federal program.

Senator Carr drew attention to the question of educators. Why will this government not listen to educators who are pleading that these funds be spent on educational outcomes, not on gymnasiums and buildings upon which the Deputy Prime Minister can see a photograph or statue of herself? I draw the chamber’s attention to three such programs that I think these educators are calling to fund. I can tell you the outcomes: they are programs that are being or have been cut. The first is a hearing and learning program. The cost? $2,000 per classroom throughout the north of Australia. Educators tell us one of the primary reasons why young kids do not learn is that they do not hear. Indigenous children are believed to have hearing problems of up to 70 per cent because of health problems. So we immediately see that this program of a very humble $2,000 per room—less than $1 million across the north of Australia—has been cut, and those seeking this funding heard that from the mouth of the Deputy Prime Minister herself.

We secondly hear of a program called Future Footprints, about which I sought information in Senate estimates hearings recently. It is a program that supports 160 Indigenous children in boarding schools in Perth. These are Western Australian and Northern Territory schoolkids heavily subsidised by the boarding schools.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What’s this got to do with anything in question time?

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is to do with the point that your colleague drew attention to expenditure and to educators, and I am drawing attention to what educators are saying they want this money to be spent on. This program, with $400,000 of expenditure per annum, is to be cut. It supports 160 students. Last year, 19 out of 19 participated at year 12. They all graduated. They have all gone on to higher education, training, employment or, in one case, an overseas Rotary exchange. The interesting thing about these two programs, of course, is that they allow—almost force—me to draw attention to the speech given by the Prime Minister in February last year, in which he made a plea for the closing of the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, said that we would try to halve the education gap, the numeracy gap and the employment gap and said that we would work together across the parliament to achieve these outcomes. He said that it was the time for a new approach to enduring problems. It certainly has been. The approach to these problems has been no funding.

In the few minutes left, I draw attention to the responses from Senator Arbib today, in which he told us that major changes were necessary because surveys indicated that the system was not working. Last week in the committee, I asked if any surveys of job seekers were conducted. The answer was no. Were any surveys of employers conducted? It would appear to me a very interesting scenario if in fact we do not know where this information came from. The tender committee, of course, had no employers, no service providers and no past job seekers.

Question agreed to.