It is a bizarre irony that the former minister for education, Julia Gillard, succeeded Kevin Rudd as prime minister when it is the waste and mismanagement of a program she is entirely responsible for that seriously damaged the Rudd government’s credibility and contributed to his downfall.

Given what we know about Gillard’s abilities, it is not surprising that, during the first few weeks of her administration, the wheels have fallen off her solution to stop the influx of asylum-seekers, and that she is looking decidedly shaky on the mining tax deal.

Over the past 2 1/2 years there hasn’t been an education policy that hasn’t been partially or entirely bungled in some way, shape, or form by the former minister for education.

Putting that aside for the moment, it is worth considering the new Minister for Education and the possible reason he was chosen for the job. Gillard did not decide to go with a young up-and-comer or a firebrand visionary type who could reignite the portfolio of education, which is historically considered one of Labor’s greatest strengths. Instead she opted to go with Simon Crean, trying to shore up problems and inoculate the huge deficiencies in the portfolio in the hope they can quietly sit out the election.

Despite Gillard’s comments this week, Labor simply cannot afford to fight the election on education because of her record of failure in the portfolio. With the effective and energetic Christopher Pyne as shadow education minister, Gillard couldn’t risk putting the portfolio in the hands of a novice.

The opposition now has the opportunity to offer innovative and carefully targeted education policies that can outflank the government, whose record of waste and failure is monumental.
Last week Tony Abbott and Pyne announced the Coalition would redirect school-hall funding directly to schools to manage, thus cutting across Gillard’s continuing complaint that the Coalition would cut school funding.

It is well documented that the grandiosely named Building the Education Revolution has been tainted by chronic waste and mismanagement and reports of systemic rorts, price gouging and collusion in the construction of school halls and other facilities.

From the outset the guidelines for the program were deeply flawed, sending billions of taxpayer dollars directly into the hands of state governments.

State education bureaucracies were entirely ill-equipped to deal with the complexities of the roll-out, so projects were contracted out to developers, who have reportedly been charging exorbitant prices for substandard buildings.

Principals and school councils were largely shunted from the process, told by officials what they would be receiving, whether they liked it or not.

In contrast, the non-government sector has self-managed projects and achieved value for money. The comparison is simply staggering.

It is obvious the quick fix is for the government sector to be treated like the non-government sector and self-manage projects. However, the federal Labor government never entertained the notion that government schools could be trusted to manage projects themselves.

The Coalition has a strong case to prosecute when it comes to its alternative plan of allowing schools to self-manage projects, and the policy announcement has been very well received by the sector.

Leonie Trimper of the Australian Primary Principals Association was reported as saying the government sector was envious of the non-government sector’s ability to self-manage projects, and the notion that principals and schools should self manage infrastructure should become standard practice.

Given that the former Howard government trusted schools to self-manage projects under its Investing in Our Schools program, it is hardly a revolutionary idea. However, the really clever part of the Coalition’s plan is that schools will be given an extraordinary incentive to self-manage their projects and focus on making savings. This is because schools will be entitled to retain any savings made to use for other priorities on their wish list. These funds are now sent back to the same state governments that mismanaged them in the first place.

This could be a very significant amount of money. If estimates are correct then government sector projects should be coming in at two-thirds of what is presently being spent. Hence some government schools with a $3 million grant could save as much as a $1m for other projects.
Imagine what needy schools could do each with a lazy million, without any caveats on how it must be spent. Some of these schools have been neglected for years by the state governments that have primary responsibility for their infrastructure.

This is precisely the source of the growing anger and disappointment about this program. Rather than closing the gap between government and non-government sectors, it is now wider than ever, courtesy of the Australian taxpayer.

Parents aren’t stupid; they drive past the local non-government school and see the excellent buildings under construction and have a clear comparison to the often prefabricated buildings peppering the government school sector.

No two ways about it, the Building the Education Revolution has been a crime against the taxpayer. And it is not going to stop under this newly minted Gillard government because it was the PM’s program. Crean’s response to the idea that schools should be entrusted with funds directly is strange from someone tasked to properly administer taxpayer money. He accused the opposition of potentially opening up the government to litigation from cancelled contracts, leaving buildings half finished.

But surely if a school is not getting value for money, or indeed is being outrageously ripped off, then it is necessary for the government to immediately cancel contracts and initiate litigation: something the Gillard government wants to avoid at all costs.

Crean and the taskforce his predecessor established to investigate waste should be hauling contractors and state governments into the courtroom to extract compensation for schools that have been ripped off blind, not to mention the rest of us taxpayers.

Assuredly if the government wins the next election then this matter will eventually disappear from the public consciousness, as such things eventually do, while the judicial inquiry into the program promised by the Coalition will obviously never occur.

Australians will never know for sure how much money was lost in this program or who is
responsible, and Gillard will have escaped unscathed.

But rest assured, if Labor wins this coming election, there will be more mismanagement to come from the Gillard government and we will all be paying the price.

The Weekend Australian, July 17-18, 2010

The former Midnight Oil frontman said of Labor’s insulation program: “We’re seeing a relatively small number of complaints in the system, given the scale of the system, about 0.5 per cent of complaints given the totality of the system. It has been a very successful program . . .” Two weeks later he was demoted and the program was cancelled.

As Coalition education spokesman Christopher Pyne pointed out last week, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd are running a very similar line about the much hyped Building the Education Revolution program, citing complaints in a mere 0.76 per cent of schools.
By the government’s own measure, Gillard has done an even worse job than Garrett. Yet the school hall rip-off continues at a cracking pace and Gillard continues to preside over the disaster-riddled education portfolio.

It is astonishing enough that it took five deaths and 120 house fires for the government to act on the insulation program, but when it comes to the BER, the government seems perfectly comfortable that millions of dollars are evaporating from the program almost daily.

Gillard describes the problems as small bumps in the road. On the face of it, her response appears uncaring and arrogant.

Announced in February last year, the BER started life as a $14.7 billion stimulus spend designed to provide additional infrastructure support to Australian schools. This was a very exciting announcement, especially for the public education sector, long neglected by the states and desperate for any capital investment.

At the time it was claimed that, in addition to improving education, the money was also meant to stimulate the local economy and create jobs in communities.

From the outset, the program’s design was flawed.

Unlike the previous federal government, which gave money directly to schools for projects, the Rudd government opted to entrust the states with the roll-out and, as a result, it has been the public education system that has lost out big time in this once in a generation spend.

In turn, the states have handed over the projects to a handful of multinational construction companies that have pocketed the windfall along with their suppliers.

Local tradesmen and suppliers have largely missed out on contracts, or have been given minor jobs.

Often, wealthy independent schools have been able to manage their own projects and squeeze every dollar, but it is a regional public school that is forced to take delivery of a prefabricated library delivered on the back of a truck, with barely a cent left for outfitting. In one well-reported example, the building, once delivered, didn’t even fit the foundations.

Almost two months after the program began, the first problem was reported in the media. Since that time complaints have exploded, climaxing in the extraordinary situation towards the end of last year where the government announced a $1.7bn blow-out in the primary schools component of the package. At that time, the guidelines were also revised (not for the last time) to include the words “value for money”.

With almost 99 per cent of complaints coming from public schools, it seems the great champion of public education, the Labor Party, has dropped the ball.

All the while in the media, Gillard routinely has laughed off complaints. Similarly in parliamentary question time, she derided the opposition for raising significant concerns from its electorates.

Meanwhile, the widespread discontent has continued to spread. Along with other media outlets, this newspaper has continued to publish many examples of systemic price gouging, rorting and waste.

To top it all off, just last week even the well performing federal Treasurer, Wayne Swan, admitted rorting was occurring in the BER.

Little wonder then that the federal auditor-general extended his investigation into the administration and reporting requirements of the project. He is due to report next month.

So what has the government been doing about all this? As with Garrett’s insulation stimulus, it seems it has been seriously inactive until significantly caught out.

This year we have discovered that hundreds of projects were being audited in NSW, although little is known about the findings after the process was concluded. This was in response to the negative media reports coming out of the state; a transparent attempt at playing catch-up long after decisive action was needed.

Similarly Queensland has had some high-profile BER disasters, including the failure to put the $490 million first round of the primary schools program out to tender. The stories emerging in some of these schools are heartbreaking.

In response, the federal opposition has this week set a challenge for the government to begin a judicial inquiry into the program. If the federal government is correct and it is largely running well, then it should not have anything to fear.

Rudd made his name attacking the previous government over the AWB scandal concerning the UN oil for food program in Iraq. The Howard government initiated the Cole royal commission to investigate the claims in an open and transparent way.

It is time for the federal Labor government to demonstrate some courage and send a clear message to the taxpayers of Australia that the good management of billions of tax dollars is more important than petty party politics.

Rather than denying what is increasingly obvious, which is what Gillard still seems intent on doing, Rudd has an opportunity to seize the moment and show he is prepared to acknowledge there are problems and work to fix them.

Agreeing to a judicial inquiry is the obvious first step. It might also be a chance to put his very ambitious deputy back in her box.

The Weekend Australian

With the government controlling the treasury purse strings, not to mention the parliamentary agenda, it is a simple matter to dominate the news cycle with a media drop. Announcing new programs and spending is always newsworthy, and carries more weight than opposition policies outside of the election campaign.

To combat this, an opposition shadow minister has to be relentless, quick off the mark and able to cut through the jargon with a memorable line. It is their lot in life to constantly run interference on their opposite number, while preparing for the election. Since they lost the 2007 election we have seen some major figures from the Howard government struggle on the other side. The shock of defeat after 11 1/2 years has been difficult to get over.

First to go are the plush ministerial offices and staff allocations. Next is the departmental advice on tap, not to mention the vast resources at a minister’s disposal. Then there is the shocking sense of prominence lost. Even a federal parliamentary secretary has their share of departmental officials, lobbyists and interest groups bowing and scraping, hanging on their every word.

By comparison, opposition is a cold place where members are forced to make the most of little and fight hard for a share of the national spotlight.

Kevin Rudd, in the lead-up to the 2007 election, managed to outmanoeuvre the Howard government, whose failure to rejuvenate made it easy for Labor to paint the Coalition as being old and out of touch.

But the upcoming 2010 election is an entirely different proposition for the opposition.

Bringing down the first-term Rudd government under ordinary circumstances would be tricky, but with Australia appearing to have avoided the global financial crisis, which will be central to the government’s campaign no matter how spurious, this makes the task extremely difficult.

While under some circumstances it may still be possible to win government this year, Tony Abbott also needs to plan for a two-term strategy to knock off Rudd. At minimum, he needs to hold the fort this election, make some gains if possible, and avoid losing seats, which would be disastrous both for the Coalition and for the ongoing viability of Abbott’s leadership.

To ensure a strong showing on election day Abbott needs to seriously think about how best to utilise the standout performers in the party he leads. To do so may represent the Coalition’s best shot at defeating Rudd.

After two years we have seen some new key players emerge from the tattered former government.

One of these emerging fighters is Christopher Pyne, who is showing signs of increased maturity. Shaking off a decade of being held back under Howard, and under-utilised by Brendan Nelson, Pyne emerged as one of Malcolm Turnbull’s key supporters, and was duly rewarded with the important post of shadow minister for education and manager of opposition business.

This caused some controversy at the time, with the Right of the Liberal Party feeling the moderate wing had been favoured by Turnbull. But despite this Pyne’s single most defining characteristic is that he never takes a backwards step. Indeed with the exception of Abbott and his increasingly helpful deputy, Julie Bishop, Pyne is one of the best performers in the present opposition.

Pyne has shaken off the critics in his own party with his relentless attacks in Question Time, a forensic knowledge of the standing orders after 17 years in Parliament and his general indefatigability and capacity for hard work.

Despite the recent leadership change it is telling that one of the first acts of Abbott as leader was to guarantee the continuation of Pyne in his position. While one element of this may have been to appease the factional divisions that emerged towards the end of Turnbull’s leadership, Abbott did not ignore the undeniable hits Pyne has had on his opposite number, Julia Gillard.

Considered to be the strongest performer in the Rudd government and lauded as a future prime minister, Gillard is great on her feet and a darling of the media. Gillard was considered to be quite untouchable despite the trouble that I’ve identified previously in this column, namely that she often struggles with delivering on the nuts and bolts of her mega-portfolio.

The Coalition has seized on this since Pyne became shadow minister for education and recently he has done considerable damage to the perception of education as an unquestioned plus for the government. With major programs over budget and under investigation by the auditor, this is a tremendous outcome, and the best any opposition could hope for when billions of dollars are being thrown around. The Coalition line that Gillard is someone who has too much on her plate and a part-time minister appears to increasingly grate on her, especially since Pyne is managing to take the gleam off Gillard’s armour.

In this election year the Coalition will need some big ideas of their own in an attempt to control the policy agenda and the media cycle during the forthcoming campaign.

Trying to gazump the government in education may still be difficult given the massive spending, so it will be Pyne’s job to continue to take the gloss of the government’s program. This is a task for which the parliamentary terrier from South Australia is extremely well suited.

The Weekend Australian, February 13-14, 2010