Joint Transcript - Parliament House - 5 May 2010
05 May 2010
Transcipt TRANSCRIPT OF THE HON. TONY ABBOTT MHR
JOINT DOORSTOP INTERVIEW WITH THE HON. CHRISTOPHER PYNE MHR,
SHADOW MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, APPRENTICESHIPS AND TRAINING,
PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA
Subjects: The Auditor-General's report into Julia Gillard's bungled school hall programme; Henry tax review; LNP.
E&OE........................................................................................................................
TONY ABBOTT:
Look, thanks for coming out. Christopher and I are here to respond briefly to the Auditor-General report on the so called education revolution programme. I'm going to ask Christopher, in a moment, to make some detailed comments. But, what I'd like to say is that it seems to me from a very quick look at the report, which all we've been able to do so far, that this programme was really set up to fail. It was never going to achieve the objectives which the government had for it and the government knew that from the beginning. It was set up to fail.
The other point I make is that the Auditor-General specifically avoided going deeply into the question of value for money and that has been by far the biggest single problem with this programme. We know now that the average cost per square metre of this programme has been close to $5,000 and yet we know from the industry that the average cost per square metre of building in schools should be about $1,500. In fact, construction under this programme, it seems, is more expensive than the construction of high rise buildings. Now, plainly this is a disastrous waste of taxpayers' money and it's why we really do need a judicial inquiry, a full judicial inquiry to get to the bottom of the waste and extravagance under this programme.
The final point I'd make before throwing to Christopher is that it seems pretty clear on the basis of the Auditor-General's report that Julia Gillard's explanations for the cost blow out were quite wrong, quite wrong. There was never any question of over-subscription to the programme. It seems that the kitchen cabinet that made the decision knew right up front when they conceived of the programme that they weren't going to be able to do it for the money that they'd put on the table. So, this is a very bad report from the Auditor-General. It is a fail mark from the Auditor-General against this programme, but what it does highlight is the need for full judicial inquiry, focussing on the lack of value for money in a $16 billion programme. Christopher.
CHRISTOPHER PYNE:
Thank you, Tony. What in essence the Auditor-General has found today is that even though he specifically wasn't inquiring into the issue of value for money, because that wasn't part of his terms of reference, he has found real issues with the way the guidelines have been administered by the Department of Education. Essentially, he's found that there's been an over-bureaucratic approach to this programme, that it's been sclerotic in terms of its arrangements between the states and the Commonwealth, that the claims made by the Minister have no foundation about the purposes of this inquiry.
Julia Gillard, you might remember, used to claim that this had created tens of thousands of jobs. The Auditor-General specifically finds today that there is know data that would provide any basis for that claim. She also used to claim that the reason for the $1.7 billion blow out was because there had been an over-subscription in take-up by schools of the BER programme. The Auditor-General specifically puts the lie to that statement in his report today by saying that the kitchen cabinet of the government knew from the very beginning that there would be a blow out of this programme and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the take-up by the schools. I think that is a very significant finding by the Auditor-General and one that we'll be pursuing in parliament next week as to whether the Minister for Eduction misled the parliament when she made those remarks when first the blow out occurred.
The Auditor-General found that there was an environment in which waste and mismanagement could essentially flourish because the education authorities were overly hampered by a Department of Education which didn't have the skills or the remit to manage a programme of this nature. It's eerily similar to the insulation debacle where the Department of the Environment didn't have the skills to run out a programme. In this case the Department of Education was asked to do something which it probably should never have been asked to do and was designed to fail from the beginning.
There are other aspects of the Auditor-General's inquiry which specifically find against the government. He didn't make recommendation because, as he says in his report, as the programme was already being rolled out there was no point in making recommendations about changing the guidelines. He specifically addresses the issue of why there are no recommendations because the programme is already rolled out. And of course one of the other aspects to his findings is that only 18.6 per cent of projects are running on time. In other words, 82 per cent are well and truly behind schedule, so a programme that was designed to stimulate the economy during the global financial crisis will actually be stimulating the economy well after the global financial crisis so-called has passed.
QUESTION:
Mr Abbott, the Prime Minister has often said that this is providing jobs for chippies and sparkies and those sorts of tradespeople. Based on the unavailability of data about how many jobs actually have been provided, do you think he's been misleading people?
TONY ABBOTT:
Well, it's typical of Kevin Rudd that he's been making claims that he can't sustain. This is a person who is not fair dinkum with the Australian public. He wasn't fair dinkum about climate change, he wasn't fair dinkum about tax reform, he wasn't fair dinkum about the home insulation programme, he wasn't fair dinkum about hospital reform and he's not fair dinkum in this.
QUESTION:
Mr Abbott, what did the mining executives tell you today to help you solidify your position on how you'll vote?
TONY ABBOTT:
I've made it very clear that I am deeply hostile to this great big new tax on the most efficient and the most competitive sector of our economy, the sector of our economy which above all else has helped us to survive the global financial crisis. The last thing I want to do is to see any damage done to what is in effect the goose that laid the golden egg for Australia. Now, I had a very good meeting with senior mining executives and I reiterate that I can see no good arguments for this great big new tax, I can see no way that the Coalition could support it and certainly the only way to avoid it is to ensure that there is a change of government at the election.
QUESTION:
So would you vote against that tax if it happened to come up before the election, you would definitely vote against?
TONY ABBOTT:
It is a very, very bad tax. Now, Martin Ferguson, backing off at a million miles an hour, is now saying that this won't happen this side of an election but as sure as night follows day, if the Rudd government is re-elected this tax will be put on our most productive industry. Australian jobs will evaporate in the tens of thousands, but that will happen unless there is a change of government.
QUESTION:
Mr Abbott, how can it be backing off if the documentation released on Sunday says the legislation won't be unveiled and released until next year after the election?
TONY ABBOTT:
He is backing off because he knows what this will do to the mining sector. He is talking to mining sector executives all the time in a way that Prime Minister Rudd is not.
QUESTION:
Mr Abbott, how do you tally your viewpoint and the criticism that the mining companies are making right now when the Minerals Council of Australia in its own submission to Henry said that a profits-based tax is more preferable than royalties?
TONY ABBOTT:
But that's not what's happening. Royalties are staying and there is a great big new tax on top of royalties.
QUESTION:
They're being rebated for the royalties.
TONY ABBOTT:
The mining sector is adamant that what this is is a double tax and that's the danger. We are going to get a double tax on the most productive sector of our economy, a sector of our economy which is responsible for a half a million highly paid jobs, directly and indirectly, which is responsible for securing good superannuation returns for countless tens and hundreds of thousands of Australian retirees. I mean, if you damage this sector you don't just hurt foreign shareholders, you hurt millions of Australians and you prejudice the long-term future of this country and only a government which is fundamentally incompetent, which is incapable of talking to people before it acts would make this kind of mistake.
QUESTION:
Mr Abbott, can you have any assurances today that you won't put any new taxes on the mining industry if you're successful?
TONY ABBOTT:
Look, I had a very good discussion and I just want to make it clear that this is a very, very bad tax and I can see no way that the Coalition could support it but the only way to ensure that it doesn't happen is to change the government.
QUESTION:
Mr Abbott, the Liberal National Party in Queensland are in a shambles today, there's been two resignations of two MPs...
TONY ABBOTT:
That's a matter for the Liberal National Party in Queensland.
QUESTION:
You need to win a lot of seats in Queensland to take government.
TONY ABBOTT:
That's a matter for the Liberal National Party in Queensland.
QUESTION:
So are you saying that you have faith in the Liberal National Party outfit?
TONY ABBOTT:
I'm just saying that the matter that you refer to is for the Liberal National Party in Queensland to deal with.
QUESTION:
But this is a matter for you considering you're about to go into an election campaign with a newly merged party and it's in a shambles.
TONY ABBOTT:
That's a matter for the Liberal National Party to deal with in Queensland.
QUESTION:
What about Michael Johnson? He's a matter for you. You last week gave him your endorsement ahead of the Liberal National Party deciding what to do about his future, enquiring into his affairs. Are you saying that the LNP should back off? Were you not briefed on his circumstances?
TONY ABBOTT:
Again, this is a matter for the Liberal National Party in Queensland.
QUESTION:
Well he's one of your MPs. Are you saying that they should back off?
TONY ABBOTT:
Again, it's a matter for the Liberal National Party in Queensland.
QUESTION:
Mr Pyne, back on education for a moment.
CHRISTOPHER PYNE:
Sure, that's a good idea.
TONY ABBOTT:
Yeah. Hear, hear.
CHRISTOPHER PYNE:
I'm all ready for it.
TONY ABBOTT:
Sorry, that's a matter for the Liberal National Party...
QUESTION:
You said that the BER wasn't stimulating the economy but in fact the Auditor-General did find that it was showing early signs of doing just that. I mean, wasn't that the whole point? The point is that...
CHRISTOPHER PYNE:
No, what the Auditor-General found was that there was evidence that there has been in construction had increased in Australia. Now, of course if you're going to build 9,650 school halls you'd be hard-pressed for construction to go backwards. What the Auditor-General did find, however, was that the claims of the government that this had been a job creation scheme had no basis of fact, that there was no data that indicated that. He also found, if you look at figure 7.9 on page 164, that 40 per cent of principals believed that they were not getting value for money and he also found, if you look on page 18 that, hesitating to sound like Rain Man of course, but if you look on page 18 you'll find that he found that schools got what they were told to have not what they wanted or needed.
QUESTION:
So why was value for money not a consideration for the Auditor this time and is there a need for a separate audit into value for money?
CHRISTOPHER PYNE:
Well there is, Misha, you're absolutely right. The Auditor-General set his own terms of reference, you'll remember that Julia Gillard said there was no need to have an Auditor-General's inquiry. The Senate passed a motion calling for one, the Opposition wrote to the Auditor-General asking for one. The Minister herself ignored the idea there should be one. The Auditor-General then set his own terms of reference and decided not to inquire into value for money, that's a matter for him. That's why we need a judicial inquiry, that's why we need a judicial inquiry, an independent inquiry with the powers to summon documents and subpoena witnesses to ensure that we get to the bottom of who is responsible for taxpayers getting 50 per cent of value for a $16.2 billion spend.
QUESTION:
Isn't it a fact, though, that the Commonwealth Auditor-General has no legal basis to scrutinise state agencies which are rolling out the programme?
CHRISTOPHER PYNE:
Well, that's right. He hasn't scrutinised each of the state agencies, he's scrutinised the Department of Education...
QUESTION:
Yeah, he doesn't have the scope to.
CHRISTOPHER PYNE:
Well, that's why we need a judicial inquiry to investigate all aspects of this complete debacle. Without a judicial inquiry, the stench from the school hall rip-off will hang over the government for years into the future.
[ends]