Transcript - Doorstop Interview - 12 June 2009

SUBJECTS: "Building the Education Revolution" Program Referred to Auditor General; Principals being gagged from speaking out

Hon Christopher Pyne MP

Well there's a bit of interest today in this free-falling ""Building the Education Revolution"" so-called program of the Federal Government. We've been saying in the Opposition for some weeks, if not months, that the ""Building the Education Revolution"" program is failing: that in the rush to push money out the door to builders and to the community and to schools, Julia Gillard has not dotted the i's, not crossed the t's, and there are now countless examples.

I think the worst example, similar to the examples of paying deceased persons the stimulus cheque, and the 514,000 people overseas who were paid the stimulus cheque, is the fact that schools that are to be demolished are being paid money under the Federal Government's program for infrastructure that in some cases they'll be able to take with them, but in many cases will be demolished with the school at the end of the year, or next year.

Journalist

Isn't it fair and reasonable for schools, even with a death sentence hanging over them, to be able to pay for the upkeep of decaying doors and toilet blocks and things? I mean some of these schools will still be open for 2 to 3 years?

Pyne

And that is the State Government's responsibility, Tom. That's what the State Government should be doing. The tragedy for Gepps Cross Primary School is that they have a toilet block that is uninhabitable. How did we get to that point that the State Government simply allowed that school to run down to the point where they have to use some money that the Federal Government has made available to make their toilet block habitable? What have those children been having to put up with for goodness knows how many years?

So it's not an excuse to say that of course the children should be able to have access to decent infrastructure. Of course they should. And the State Government should have been providing that for all this time. But this is Federal Government money, Federal tax-payers' money, which is supposed to be used for infrastructure in schools and, apparently, to boost the economy. And we are seeing profiteering from private companies; skimming from state governments; schools that already have school halls being told that they have to have another one; schools with gymnasiums who have got plans for new school buildings being told they have to have a gymnasium; schools that need air conditioning being told that they can't have air conditioning because they're being told that it's environmentally unfriendly.

We have a situation where at Cleve Area School in our own state they were told they'd get eight classrooms three months ago, and three months later they've been told the same money will buy four. Now what's happening is the normal rules of supply and demand are being suspended, builders are realising that they can make a tremendous amount of money, bureaucrats are telling them that we've got to spend this money and get it out the door, so tenders are being inflated by up to 30% in some cases, and we have evidence that the scheme is desperately in need of a proper Ministerial hand that's controlling what's actually happening.

Now since the Minister won't become a full-time Education Minister, we're going to ask the Auditor General to do the job that Julia Gillard should be doing.

Journalist

Are you saying that work should stop in the mean time until the Auditor General has looked at all these contracts to find out whether they're ...

Pyne

What usually happens when the Auditor General conducts an investigation is that the programs of the Government continue as you'd be expecting, and then the Auditor General reports back at an appropriate time about how better to improve the scheme, how the scheme should operate, and what kinds of governance rules should be put in place. Now there's $14.7 billion. A lot of it hasn't been spent, so the horse hasn't completely bolted.

I hope the Government will not be stubborn (inaudible) about this program, but recognise that it's a once in a generation opportunity to actually put infrastructure into our schools that they desperately need, and that is not going to happen under the current scheme. There'll be prefabricated school halls and gymnasiums all across the country. In many instances schools already have these facilities, or they have access to them. They want to do different things with their money. I think local school communities: Principals, Governing Councils, should make the decision about what's good for their school, rather than a bureaucrat in Canberra or a bureaucrat in Adelaide forcing them to spend money that essentially many people are now saying is going to be wasted.

Journalist

So you're not actually against the money going to the schools - you actually want the schools themselves to decide where the money should be spent rather than someone in Canberra?

Pyne

Well the Coalition's position is that we always welcome investment in schools, and when the stimulus package was announced we said that we would have a $3 billion package which would be like the old Investing in our Schools program. That was about $1 billion. So we said we'd treble that, and the way that worked was that Principals and Governing Councils said 'what we need is computers', or 'what we need is eight new classrooms', or 'what we need is an oval to be re-done', and they would make that decision.

The problem with this program is that the Government is so desperate to get the money out the door, that prefabricated buildings from Western Sydney are being trucked all over the nation. Now how is that increasing jobs in local areas? In Cleve, or in Roma, or in wherever else that you wanted to use as an example?

Journalist

Do you think that the schools that are being closed to make way for the six so-called Super Schools should have been shielded from receiving this money, given that they're not going to be around to make the most of it?

Pyne

Well there's obviously a better way to do it. One way would be for the State Government to have done their job in the first place and make sure the schools were habitable, and I think that in 2009 it is extraordinary that there are schools that are not habitable, where children are expected to go every day and get a decent education.

But putting that to one side, you could have easily put the money aside for these schools for when the new school's been built.

Journalist

Wouldn't there have been an outcry if those schools did not receive the funding (inaudible)?

Pyne

That's what I'm saying. You could have put the money aside in a fund - if you want to do this job properly you would say: 'here's $14.7 billion. This is a once in a generation opportunity to invest in our schools. Let's ask the schools what they want and need.' In many cases there are schools with plans already on the table, and have had for years, waiting for an opportunity to actually rebuild their schools in a way that will suit their students. Those plans have all been pushed out the door. We have examples of where Principals have been rung at 9am and told: you have to have an answer whether you want this or that by 6 o'clock today, or the money's off the table. Now some of these Principals have spent years working out what's best for their school.

But for example for the local schools that you asked about there's no reason why a fund couldn't have been established for the super schools, for the future - that money put aside and invested, and when the school was up and running, or had started building, or whatever else they wished to do with that money, they would then be able to spend that money in that school. I'm not saying they should miss out on their money - I'm just saying: let's spend tax-payers' money wisely. Let's get value for money rather than ... I won't use the vernacular because that's rather topical at the moment since the Prime Minister's tried to make himself seem more matey, but we don't want to waste money unnecessarily when we could actually use it wisely.

...

One of the really pernicious aspects of the guidelines for the so-called 'Building the Education Revolution' is the Principals are being told in the Guidelines that if they comment about their concerns the money will be taken off the table. So the reason why the media and the Opposition is unable to find specific examples that we can use - we've got lots of them on emails, we've got lots of them in letters and lots of phone calls to me and my colleagues, but when we say right we need to go out: we need to expose this scam, they say 'oh we can't use our names, because if we talk about it, we're going to lose our money'.

Now it's almost Orwellian in its brilliance, that the Government can make a complete hash of a scheme, and no-one's allowed to criticise them for fear of losing $3 million.