Questions continue … answers not so forthcoming
Questions continue to be raised concerning the Government’s management of its BER funding allocation with media commentators revealing further instances of concern from educationalists (Sydney Morning Herald, 2010).
While most school principals have been pleased to receive BER funding – why wouldn’t they when the allocations represent an enormous fillip to school infrastructure development that had basically been abandoned by state governments over decades – there are some common elements of public disgruntlement:
i) Schools that accepted the funds quickly stand to benefit most as the government grapples with supervision issues associated with such a massive and sudden injection of resource funds. Timelines for construction have been extended while there is concern that with continuing strong economic data the government may judiciously cut back its expenditure allocation to avoid over-heating the economy.
ii) Independent schools have been criticised because in receiving up to $3 million in individual allocations through the Primary Schools for the 21st Century (P21) development many critics believe the government merely exacerbated the resourcing difference between the public and private education sectors.
iii) Because most independent schools have long established capital works forward planning they could essentially pull these projects ‘off the shelf’ relatively quickly to complete funding requests to the Federal Government. Because of funding and structural limitations most public schools could not have legitimately provided such quick fix project solutions to a government intent on demonstrating it was serious about improving education resourcing.
iv) The Government has freely acknowledged the $42 billion BER funding program was as much implemented to stimulate the economy and buttress employment in the building and construction industries as it was to improve school education facilities.
v) The Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian newspapers continue to cite instances where significant cost differences exist between prices obtained by independent assessment and prices approved by the government for capital projects. In its haste to allocate funds and complete building infrastructure the government appears to have avoided stringent fiduciary responsibility regarding public money allocations in many instances.
vi) The Government continues to claim the proportion of funding discrepancies verses the quantum of schools benefiting from the BER program is miniscule, thereby fully justifying its education revolution credentials. Both sides in this allocation debate will continue to refute each other's claims regarding financial and administrative competency.
The government will always win this debate: it can highlight more school success stories than examples of mismanagement. The indefatigable Education Minister clearly runs rings around anyone from the opposition benches in terms of education presence, parliamentary response and policy initiatives.
vii) As to criticism of the government seeking centralised control over school projects critics must acknowledge that the government would always demand the primary decision making role in BER allocations.
Such control is illustrated in the entire evidence-based resourcing philosophy of the Rudd Government.
Funding recipients, be they state governments through COAG agreements, be they indigenous communities or departments building regional residential housing, be they new hospital or welfare recipients, all need to demonstrate they meet compliance and resourcing criteria determined by Canberra.
In other words, dance to the government’s tune or the government will dismiss the DJ.
One critical social and national response that the government continually fails to answer is the issue of evaluating government responsibility, management and fiscal control in operating such massive federally funded programs.
It seems throwing money to solve problems has become far easier than ensuring that government largesse is properly administered.
Who holds the government accountable for such management issues when the money allocated comes either from taxpayers or is financed by debt borrowing which ultimately must be paid for by the taxpayer?
School billions miss their target, Sydney Morning Herald, 15 February 2010, p1. www.smh.com.au
Comments: