❓ The Minister for Housing and Works refutes claims made by the Shadow Minister for Education and Training regarding the Department's alleged profiteering from a federal grants program, outlining inaccuracies in the Shadow Minister's statements and defending the Department's role and fees.
AnsweredQoN 155Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
SHADOW MINISTER FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING - COMMENTS ON DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND WORKS
What is the government’s response to claims by the shadow Minister for Education and Training in his latest press release and media interviews that the Department of Housing and Works is profiteering from a federal grants program? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS
What is the government’s response to claims by the shadow Minister for Education and Training in his latest press release and media interviews that the Department of Housing and Works is profiteering from a federal grants program? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. I suggest members opposite might not want to interject once they are aware of the facts. The member has put out a press release and has been on radio this morning making some false claims. If this press release is anything to go by, I am very glad he is on the opposition front bench and not in front of the classroom any more. Speaking of classrooms, I acknowledge the students who are here from Guildford Grammar School, in my electorate. Hopefully, this will be a valuable lesson for them. Not only has Hon Peter Collier got his facts wrong with a capital W, but also he cannot add up. If I had to give him a mark, I would give him an F for appalling maths and appalling scaremongering. Let me outline the glaring mistakes he has made. He claims that our government has pocketed $8 million in public school funding from the commonwealth’s Investing in our Schools program. Wrong. He claims that money was taken on the pretext of being a project management fee for education department staff. Wrong. He claims that the Department of Education and Training or the Department of Housing and Works is involved in the grants allocation process. Wrong. He claims that the Department of Housing and Works charges a fee in the metropolitan area. Wrong. He claims that our government has been lax in terms of maintenance of government schools. Wrong. He claims that almost one-third of the $150 000 in federal grants received by Beaconsfield Primary School went to the state government. Wrong. In fact, the Department of Housing and Works has been managing a process that was not put in place by this government, but by the former government. He is actually criticising a process that was put in place by the Liberal Party in government. I will tell members what is going on and I will make it simple for the benefit of members opposite. Federal grants are made directly - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Federal grants are made directly to our schools. The principals have enough to do running the schools, so they do not manage construction projects. Schools in the metropolitan area contract an organisation, or someone known as an arranger, to manage the project. It is only in the country that the Department of Housing and Works manages the projects. Currently, the department has only $18 million in works out of the Investing in our Schools program logged into the system. Of that, the department has so far invoiced $6 million worth of projects, with fees totalling only $810 000 rather than the $8 million Hon Peter Collier has claimed. If we extrapolated that figure to the $18 million that the department expects to handle from the pool of money, it would amount to just over $2 million. That is nothing like the $8 million claimed by Hon Peter Collier. How has he got it so wrong? I think he has looked at the global amount, the $66 million available under the funding, and lumped the whole lot together and assumed they are all capital works projects and that DHW would take a percentage of the $66 million. Wrong. Contrary to what Hon Peter Collier has suggested, a range of things are funded other than construction processes. For example, when a fee is charged by the department in country areas, there is the construction process; preparation of the scope of works; preparation of contract documentation; preparation of detailed pre-tender documents; calling of tenders; tender evaluation; awarding of the contract; contract administration; and ensuring that the job is completed to appropriate standards of quality and safety for the children in our schools. This is about the expenditure of public money. Of course, there has to be an appropriate tender process, which has to be paid for. It should also be noted that this is not just about construction projects. Under the Investing in our Schools program, schools receive money for the purchase of playground equipment, computer equipment, musical instruments and teaching aids. They are purchases in which DHW does not get involved. It is pretty interesting when one goes through the statements in this one-page document to see how many untruths there are, and when one goes through his interview on radio 6PR this morning, one can find more. I found pretty astounding his comment to Simon Beaumont that the government in essence was playing politics with education, which was a definite no-no. In fact, only one person has played politics with education, and that is Hon Peter Collier, and he has made a definite boo-boo.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for the question. I suggest members opposite might not want to interject once they are aware of the facts. The member has put out a press release and has been on radio this morning making some false claims. If this press release is anything to go by, I am very glad he is on the opposition front bench and not in front of the classroom any more. Speaking of classrooms, I acknowledge the students who are here from Guildford Grammar School, in my electorate. Hopefully, this will be a valuable lesson for them. Not only has Hon Peter Collier got his facts wrong with a capital W, but also he cannot add up. If I had to give him a mark, I would give him an F for appalling maths and appalling scaremongering. Let me outline the glaring mistakes he has made. He claims that our government has pocketed $8 million in public school funding from the commonwealth’s Investing in our Schools program. Wrong. He claims that money was taken on the pretext of being a project management fee for education department staff. Wrong. He claims that the Department of Education and Training or the Department of Housing and Works is involved in the grants allocation process. Wrong. He claims that the Department of Housing and Works charges a fee in the metropolitan area. Wrong. He claims that our government has been lax in terms of maintenance of government schools. Wrong. He claims that almost one-third of the $150 000 in federal grants received by Beaconsfield Primary School went to the state government. Wrong. In fact, the Department of Housing and Works has been managing a process that was not put in place by this government, but by the former government. He is actually criticising a process that was put in place by the Liberal Party in government. I will tell members what is going on and I will make it simple for the benefit of members opposite. Federal grants are made directly - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Federal grants are made directly to our schools. The principals have enough to do running the schools, so they do not manage construction projects. Schools in the metropolitan area contract an organisation, or someone known as an arranger, to manage the project. It is only in the country that the Department of Housing and Works manages the projects. Currently, the department has only $18 million in works out of the Investing in our Schools program logged into the system. Of that, the department has so far invoiced $6 million worth of projects, with fees totalling only $810 000 rather than the $8 million Hon Peter Collier has claimed. If we extrapolated that figure to the $18 million that the department expects to handle from the pool of money, it would amount to just over $2 million. That is nothing like the $8 million claimed by Hon Peter Collier. How has he got it so wrong? I think he has looked at the global amount, the $66 million available under the funding, and lumped the whole lot together and assumed they are all capital works projects and that DHW would take a percentage of the $66 million. Wrong. Contrary to what Hon Peter Collier has suggested, a range of things are funded other than construction processes. For example, when a fee is charged by the department in country areas, there is the construction process; preparation of the scope of works; preparation of contract documentation; preparation of detailed pre-tender documents; calling of tenders; tender evaluation; awarding of the contract; contract administration; and ensuring that the job is completed to appropriate standards of quality and safety for the children in our schools. This is about the expenditure of public money. Of course, there has to be an appropriate tender process, which has to be paid for. It should also be noted that this is not just about construction projects. Under the Investing in our Schools program, schools receive money for the purchase of playground equipment, computer equipment, musical instruments and teaching aids. They are purchases in which DHW does not get involved. It is pretty interesting when one goes through the statements in this one-page document to see how many untruths there are, and when one goes through his interview on radio 6PR this morning, one can find more. I found pretty astounding his comment to Simon Beaumont that the government in essence was playing politics with education, which was a definite no-no. In fact, only one person has played politics with education, and that is Hon Peter Collier, and he has made a definite boo-boo.
I thank the member for the question. I suggest members opposite might not want to interject once they are aware of the facts. The member has put out a press release and has been on radio this morning making some false claims. If this press release is anything to go by, I am very glad he is on the opposition front bench and not in front of the classroom any more. Speaking of classrooms, I acknowledge the students who are here from Guildford Grammar School, in my electorate. Hopefully, this will be a valuable lesson for them. Not only has Hon Peter Collier got his facts wrong with a capital W, but also he cannot add up. If I had to give him a mark, I would give him an F for appalling maths and appalling scaremongering. Let me outline the glaring mistakes he has made. He claims that our government has pocketed $8 million in public school funding from the commonwealth’s Investing in our Schools program. Wrong. He claims that money was taken on the pretext of being a project management fee for education department staff. Wrong. He claims that the Department of Education and Training or the Department of Housing and Works is involved in the grants allocation process. Wrong. He claims that the Department of Housing and Works charges a fee in the metropolitan area. Wrong. He claims that our government has been lax in terms of maintenance of government schools. Wrong. He claims that almost one-third of the $150 000 in federal grants received by Beaconsfield Primary School went to the state government. Wrong. In fact, the Department of Housing and Works has been managing a process that was not put in place by this government, but by the former government. He is actually criticising a process that was put in place by the Liberal Party in government. I will tell members what is going on and I will make it simple for the benefit of members opposite. Federal grants are made directly - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Federal grants are made directly to our schools. The principals have enough to do running the schools, so they do not manage construction projects. Schools in the metropolitan area contract an organisation, or someone known as an arranger, to manage the project. It is only in the country that the Department of Housing and Works manages the projects. Currently, the department has only $18 million in works out of the Investing in our Schools program logged into the system. Of that, the department has so far invoiced $6 million worth of projects, with fees totalling only $810 000 rather than the $8 million Hon Peter Collier has claimed. If we extrapolated that figure to the $18 million that the department expects to handle from the pool of money, it would amount to just over $2 million. That is nothing like the $8 million claimed by Hon Peter Collier. How has he got it so wrong? I think he has looked at the global amount, the $66 million available under the funding, and lumped the whole lot together and assumed they are all capital works projects and that DHW would take a percentage of the $66 million. Wrong. Contrary to what Hon Peter Collier has suggested, a range of things are funded other than construction processes. For example, when a fee is charged by the department in country areas, there is the construction process; preparation of the scope of works; preparation of contract documentation; preparation of detailed pre-tender documents; calling of tenders; tender evaluation; awarding of the contract; contract administration; and ensuring that the job is completed to appropriate standards of quality and safety for the children in our schools. This is about the expenditure of public money. Of course, there has to be an appropriate tender process, which has to be paid for. It should also be noted that this is not just about construction projects. Under the Investing in our Schools program, schools receive money for the purchase of playground equipment, computer equipment, musical instruments and teaching aids. They are purchases in which DHW does not get involved. It is pretty interesting when one goes through the statements in this one-page document to see how many untruths there are, and when one goes through his interview on radio 6PR this morning, one can find more. I found pretty astounding his comment to Simon Beaumont that the government in essence was playing politics with education, which was a definite no-no. In fact, only one person has played politics with education, and that is Hon Peter Collier, and he has made a definite boo-boo.
Not only has Hon Peter Collier got his facts wrong with a capital W, but also he cannot add up. If I had to give him a mark, I would give him an F for appalling maths and appalling scaremongering. Let me outline the glaring mistakes he has made. He claims that our government has pocketed $8 million in public school funding from the commonwealth’s Investing in our Schools program. Wrong. He claims that money was taken on the pretext of being a project management fee for education department staff. Wrong. He claims that the Department of Education and Training or the Department of Housing and Works is involved in the grants allocation process. Wrong. He claims that the Department of Housing and Works charges a fee in the metropolitan area. Wrong. He claims that our government has been lax in terms of maintenance of government schools. Wrong. He claims that almost one-third of the $150 000 in federal grants received by Beaconsfield Primary School went to the state government. Wrong. In fact, the Department of Housing and Works has been managing a process that was not put in place by this government, but by the former government. He is actually criticising a process that was put in place by the Liberal Party in government. I will tell members what is going on and I will make it simple for the benefit of members opposite. Federal grants are made directly - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Federal grants are made directly to our schools. The principals have enough to do running the schools, so they do not manage construction projects. Schools in the metropolitan area contract an organisation, or someone known as an arranger, to manage the project. It is only in the country that the Department of Housing and Works manages the projects. Currently, the department has only $18 million in works out of the Investing in our Schools program logged into the system. Of that, the department has so far invoiced $6 million worth of projects, with fees totalling only $810 000 rather than the $8 million Hon Peter Collier has claimed. If we extrapolated that figure to the $18 million that the department expects to handle from the pool of money, it would amount to just over $2 million. That is nothing like the $8 million claimed by Hon Peter Collier. How has he got it so wrong? I think he has looked at the global amount, the $66 million available under the funding, and lumped the whole lot together and assumed they are all capital works projects and that DHW would take a percentage of the $66 million. Wrong. Contrary to what Hon Peter Collier has suggested, a range of things are funded other than construction processes. For example, when a fee is charged by the department in country areas, there is the construction process; preparation of the scope of works; preparation of contract documentation; preparation of detailed pre-tender documents; calling of tenders; tender evaluation; awarding of the contract; contract administration; and ensuring that the job is completed to appropriate standards of quality and safety for the children in our schools. This is about the expenditure of public money. Of course, there has to be an appropriate tender process, which has to be paid for. It should also be noted that this is not just about construction projects. Under the Investing in our Schools program, schools receive money for the purchase of playground equipment, computer equipment, musical instruments and teaching aids. They are purchases in which DHW does not get involved. It is pretty interesting when one goes through the statements in this one-page document to see how many untruths there are, and when one goes through his interview on radio 6PR this morning, one can find more. I found pretty astounding his comment to Simon Beaumont that the government in essence was playing politics with education, which was a definite no-no. In fact, only one person has played politics with education, and that is Hon Peter Collier, and he has made a definite boo-boo.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Federal grants are made directly to our schools. The principals have enough to do running the schools, so they do not manage construction projects. Schools in the metropolitan area contract an organisation, or someone known as an arranger, to manage the project. It is only in the country that the Department of Housing and Works manages the projects. Currently, the department has only $18 million in works out of the Investing in our Schools program logged into the system. Of that, the department has so far invoiced $6 million worth of projects, with fees totalling only $810 000 rather than the $8 million Hon Peter Collier has claimed. If we extrapolated that figure to the $18 million that the department expects to handle from the pool of money, it would amount to just over $2 million. That is nothing like the $8 million claimed by Hon Peter Collier. How has he got it so wrong? I think he has looked at the global amount, the $66 million available under the funding, and lumped the whole lot together and assumed they are all capital works projects and that DHW would take a percentage of the $66 million. Wrong. Contrary to what Hon Peter Collier has suggested, a range of things are funded other than construction processes. For example, when a fee is charged by the department in country areas, there is the construction process; preparation of the scope of works; preparation of contract documentation; preparation of detailed pre-tender documents; calling of tenders; tender evaluation; awarding of the contract; contract administration; and ensuring that the job is completed to appropriate standards of quality and safety for the children in our schools. This is about the expenditure of public money. Of course, there has to be an appropriate tender process, which has to be paid for. It should also be noted that this is not just about construction projects. Under the Investing in our Schools program, schools receive money for the purchase of playground equipment, computer equipment, musical instruments and teaching aids. They are purchases in which DHW does not get involved. It is pretty interesting when one goes through the statements in this one-page document to see how many untruths there are, and when one goes through his interview on radio 6PR this morning, one can find more. I found pretty astounding his comment to Simon Beaumont that the government in essence was playing politics with education, which was a definite no-no. In fact, only one person has played politics with education, and that is Hon Peter Collier, and he has made a definite boo-boo.
The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Federal grants are made directly to our schools. The principals have enough to do running the schools, so they do not manage construction projects. Schools in the metropolitan area contract an organisation, or someone known as an arranger, to manage the project. It is only in the country that the Department of Housing and Works manages the projects. Currently, the department has only $18 million in works out of the Investing in our Schools program logged into the system. Of that, the department has so far invoiced $6 million worth of projects, with fees totalling only $810 000 rather than the $8 million Hon Peter Collier has claimed. If we extrapolated that figure to the $18 million that the department expects to handle from the pool of money, it would amount to just over $2 million. That is nothing like the $8 million claimed by Hon Peter Collier. How has he got it so wrong? I think he has looked at the global amount, the $66 million available under the funding, and lumped the whole lot together and assumed they are all capital works projects and that DHW would take a percentage of the $66 million. Wrong. Contrary to what Hon Peter Collier has suggested, a range of things are funded other than construction processes. For example, when a fee is charged by the department in country areas, there is the construction process; preparation of the scope of works; preparation of contract documentation; preparation of detailed pre-tender documents; calling of tenders; tender evaluation; awarding of the contract; contract administration; and ensuring that the job is completed to appropriate standards of quality and safety for the children in our schools. This is about the expenditure of public money. Of course, there has to be an appropriate tender process, which has to be paid for. It should also be noted that this is not just about construction projects. Under the Investing in our Schools program, schools receive money for the purchase of playground equipment, computer equipment, musical instruments and teaching aids. They are purchases in which DHW does not get involved. It is pretty interesting when one goes through the statements in this one-page document to see how many untruths there are, and when one goes through his interview on radio 6PR this morning, one can find more. I found pretty astounding his comment to Simon Beaumont that the government in essence was playing politics with education, which was a definite no-no. In fact, only one person has played politics with education, and that is Hon Peter Collier, and he has made a definite boo-boo.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Federal grants are made directly to our schools. The principals have enough to do running the schools, so they do not manage construction projects. Schools in the metropolitan area contract an organisation, or someone known as an arranger, to manage the project. It is only in the country that the Department of Housing and Works manages the projects. Currently, the department has only $18 million in works out of the Investing in our Schools program logged into the system. Of that, the department has so far invoiced $6 million worth of projects, with fees totalling only $810 000 rather than the $8 million Hon Peter Collier has claimed. If we extrapolated that figure to the $18 million that the department expects to handle from the pool of money, it would amount to just over $2 million. That is nothing like the $8 million claimed by Hon Peter Collier. How has he got it so wrong? I think he has looked at the global amount, the $66 million available under the funding, and lumped the whole lot together and assumed they are all capital works projects and that DHW would take a percentage of the $66 million. Wrong. Contrary to what Hon Peter Collier has suggested, a range of things are funded other than construction processes. For example, when a fee is charged by the department in country areas, there is the construction process; preparation of the scope of works; preparation of contract documentation; preparation of detailed pre-tender documents; calling of tenders; tender evaluation; awarding of the contract; contract administration; and ensuring that the job is completed to appropriate standards of quality and safety for the children in our schools. This is about the expenditure of public money. Of course, there has to be an appropriate tender process, which has to be paid for. It should also be noted that this is not just about construction projects. Under the Investing in our Schools program, schools receive money for the purchase of playground equipment, computer equipment, musical instruments and teaching aids. They are purchases in which DHW does not get involved. It is pretty interesting when one goes through the statements in this one-page document to see how many untruths there are, and when one goes through his interview on radio 6PR this morning, one can find more. I found pretty astounding his comment to Simon Beaumont that the government in essence was playing politics with education, which was a definite no-no. In fact, only one person has played politics with education, and that is Hon Peter Collier, and he has made a definite boo-boo.
It is pretty interesting when one goes through the statements in this one-page document to see how many untruths there are, and when one goes through his interview on radio 6PR this morning, one can find more. I found pretty astounding his comment to Simon Beaumont that the government in essence was playing politics with education, which was a definite no-no. In fact, only one person has played politics with education, and that is Hon Peter Collier, and he has made a definite boo-boo.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for the question. I suggest members opposite might not want to interject once they are aware of the facts. The member has put out a press release and has been on radio this morning making some false claims. If this press release is anything to go by, I am very glad he is on the opposition front bench and not in front of the classroom any more. Speaking of classrooms, I acknowledge the students who are here from Guildford Grammar School, in my electorate. Hopefully, this will be a valuable lesson for them. Not only has Hon Peter Collier got his facts wrong with a capital W, but also he cannot add up. If I had to give him a mark, I would give him an F for appalling maths and appalling scaremongering. Let me outline the glaring mistakes he has made. He claims that our government has pocketed $8 million in public school funding from the commonwealth’s Investing in our Schools program. Wrong. He claims that money was taken on the pretext of being a project management fee for education department staff. Wrong. He claims that the Department of Education and Training or the Department of Housing and Works is involved in the grants allocation process. Wrong. He claims that the Department of Housing and Works charges a fee in the metropolitan area. Wrong. He claims that our government has been lax in terms of maintenance of government schools. Wrong. He claims that almost one-third of the $150 000 in federal grants received by Beaconsfield Primary School went to the state government. Wrong. In fact, the Department of Housing and Works has been managing a process that was not put in place by this government, but by the former government. He is actually criticising a process that was put in place by the Liberal Party in government. I will tell members what is going on and I will make it simple for the benefit of members opposite. Federal grants are made directly - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Federal grants are made directly to our schools. The principals have enough to do running the schools, so they do not manage construction projects. Schools in the metropolitan area contract an organisation, or someone known as an arranger, to manage the project. It is only in the country that the Department of Housing and Works manages the projects. Currently, the department has only $18 million in works out of the Investing in our Schools program logged into the system. Of that, the department has so far invoiced $6 million worth of projects, with fees totalling only $810 000 rather than the $8 million Hon Peter Collier has claimed. If we extrapolated that figure to the $18 million that the department expects to handle from the pool of money, it would amount to just over $2 million. That is nothing like the $8 million claimed by Hon Peter Collier. How has he got it so wrong? I think he has looked at the global amount, the $66 million available under the funding, and lumped the whole lot together and assumed they are all capital works projects and that DHW would take a percentage of the $66 million. Wrong. Contrary to what Hon Peter Collier has suggested, a range of things are funded other than construction processes. For example, when a fee is charged by the department in country areas, there is the construction process; preparation of the scope of works; preparation of contract documentation; preparation of detailed pre-tender documents; calling of tenders; tender evaluation; awarding of the contract; contract administration; and ensuring that the job is completed to appropriate standards of quality and safety for the children in our schools. This is about the expenditure of public money. Of course, there has to be an appropriate tender process, which has to be paid for. It should also be noted that this is not just about construction projects. Under the Investing in our Schools program, schools receive money for the purchase of playground equipment, computer equipment, musical instruments and teaching aids. They are purchases in which DHW does not get involved. It is pretty interesting when one goes through the statements in this one-page document to see how many untruths there are, and when one goes through his interview on radio 6PR this morning, one can find more. I found pretty astounding his comment to Simon Beaumont that the government in essence was playing politics with education, which was a definite no-no. In fact, only one person has played politics with education, and that is Hon Peter Collier, and he has made a definite boo-boo.
I thank the member for the question. I suggest members opposite might not want to interject once they are aware of the facts. The member has put out a press release and has been on radio this morning making some false claims. If this press release is anything to go by, I am very glad he is on the opposition front bench and not in front of the classroom any more. Speaking of classrooms, I acknowledge the students who are here from Guildford Grammar School, in my electorate. Hopefully, this will be a valuable lesson for them. Not only has Hon Peter Collier got his facts wrong with a capital W, but also he cannot add up. If I had to give him a mark, I would give him an F for appalling maths and appalling scaremongering. Let me outline the glaring mistakes he has made. He claims that our government has pocketed $8 million in public school funding from the commonwealth’s Investing in our Schools program. Wrong. He claims that money was taken on the pretext of being a project management fee for education department staff. Wrong. He claims that the Department of Education and Training or the Department of Housing and Works is involved in the grants allocation process. Wrong. He claims that the Department of Housing and Works charges a fee in the metropolitan area. Wrong. He claims that our government has been lax in terms of maintenance of government schools. Wrong. He claims that almost one-third of the $150 000 in federal grants received by Beaconsfield Primary School went to the state government. Wrong. In fact, the Department of Housing and Works has been managing a process that was not put in place by this government, but by the former government. He is actually criticising a process that was put in place by the Liberal Party in government. I will tell members what is going on and I will make it simple for the benefit of members opposite. Federal grants are made directly - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Federal grants are made directly to our schools. The principals have enough to do running the schools, so they do not manage construction projects. Schools in the metropolitan area contract an organisation, or someone known as an arranger, to manage the project. It is only in the country that the Department of Housing and Works manages the projects. Currently, the department has only $18 million in works out of the Investing in our Schools program logged into the system. Of that, the department has so far invoiced $6 million worth of projects, with fees totalling only $810 000 rather than the $8 million Hon Peter Collier has claimed. If we extrapolated that figure to the $18 million that the department expects to handle from the pool of money, it would amount to just over $2 million. That is nothing like the $8 million claimed by Hon Peter Collier. How has he got it so wrong? I think he has looked at the global amount, the $66 million available under the funding, and lumped the whole lot together and assumed they are all capital works projects and that DHW would take a percentage of the $66 million. Wrong. Contrary to what Hon Peter Collier has suggested, a range of things are funded other than construction processes. For example, when a fee is charged by the department in country areas, there is the construction process; preparation of the scope of works; preparation of contract documentation; preparation of detailed pre-tender documents; calling of tenders; tender evaluation; awarding of the contract; contract administration; and ensuring that the job is completed to appropriate standards of quality and safety for the children in our schools. This is about the expenditure of public money. Of course, there has to be an appropriate tender process, which has to be paid for. It should also be noted that this is not just about construction projects. Under the Investing in our Schools program, schools receive money for the purchase of playground equipment, computer equipment, musical instruments and teaching aids. They are purchases in which DHW does not get involved. It is pretty interesting when one goes through the statements in this one-page document to see how many untruths there are, and when one goes through his interview on radio 6PR this morning, one can find more. I found pretty astounding his comment to Simon Beaumont that the government in essence was playing politics with education, which was a definite no-no. In fact, only one person has played politics with education, and that is Hon Peter Collier, and he has made a definite boo-boo.
Not only has Hon Peter Collier got his facts wrong with a capital W, but also he cannot add up. If I had to give him a mark, I would give him an F for appalling maths and appalling scaremongering. Let me outline the glaring mistakes he has made. He claims that our government has pocketed $8 million in public school funding from the commonwealth’s Investing in our Schools program. Wrong. He claims that money was taken on the pretext of being a project management fee for education department staff. Wrong. He claims that the Department of Education and Training or the Department of Housing and Works is involved in the grants allocation process. Wrong. He claims that the Department of Housing and Works charges a fee in the metropolitan area. Wrong. He claims that our government has been lax in terms of maintenance of government schools. Wrong. He claims that almost one-third of the $150 000 in federal grants received by Beaconsfield Primary School went to the state government. Wrong. In fact, the Department of Housing and Works has been managing a process that was not put in place by this government, but by the former government. He is actually criticising a process that was put in place by the Liberal Party in government. I will tell members what is going on and I will make it simple for the benefit of members opposite. Federal grants are made directly - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Federal grants are made directly to our schools. The principals have enough to do running the schools, so they do not manage construction projects. Schools in the metropolitan area contract an organisation, or someone known as an arranger, to manage the project. It is only in the country that the Department of Housing and Works manages the projects. Currently, the department has only $18 million in works out of the Investing in our Schools program logged into the system. Of that, the department has so far invoiced $6 million worth of projects, with fees totalling only $810 000 rather than the $8 million Hon Peter Collier has claimed. If we extrapolated that figure to the $18 million that the department expects to handle from the pool of money, it would amount to just over $2 million. That is nothing like the $8 million claimed by Hon Peter Collier. How has he got it so wrong? I think he has looked at the global amount, the $66 million available under the funding, and lumped the whole lot together and assumed they are all capital works projects and that DHW would take a percentage of the $66 million. Wrong. Contrary to what Hon Peter Collier has suggested, a range of things are funded other than construction processes. For example, when a fee is charged by the department in country areas, there is the construction process; preparation of the scope of works; preparation of contract documentation; preparation of detailed pre-tender documents; calling of tenders; tender evaluation; awarding of the contract; contract administration; and ensuring that the job is completed to appropriate standards of quality and safety for the children in our schools. This is about the expenditure of public money. Of course, there has to be an appropriate tender process, which has to be paid for. It should also be noted that this is not just about construction projects. Under the Investing in our Schools program, schools receive money for the purchase of playground equipment, computer equipment, musical instruments and teaching aids. They are purchases in which DHW does not get involved. It is pretty interesting when one goes through the statements in this one-page document to see how many untruths there are, and when one goes through his interview on radio 6PR this morning, one can find more. I found pretty astounding his comment to Simon Beaumont that the government in essence was playing politics with education, which was a definite no-no. In fact, only one person has played politics with education, and that is Hon Peter Collier, and he has made a definite boo-boo.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Federal grants are made directly to our schools. The principals have enough to do running the schools, so they do not manage construction projects. Schools in the metropolitan area contract an organisation, or someone known as an arranger, to manage the project. It is only in the country that the Department of Housing and Works manages the projects. Currently, the department has only $18 million in works out of the Investing in our Schools program logged into the system. Of that, the department has so far invoiced $6 million worth of projects, with fees totalling only $810 000 rather than the $8 million Hon Peter Collier has claimed. If we extrapolated that figure to the $18 million that the department expects to handle from the pool of money, it would amount to just over $2 million. That is nothing like the $8 million claimed by Hon Peter Collier. How has he got it so wrong? I think he has looked at the global amount, the $66 million available under the funding, and lumped the whole lot together and assumed they are all capital works projects and that DHW would take a percentage of the $66 million. Wrong. Contrary to what Hon Peter Collier has suggested, a range of things are funded other than construction processes. For example, when a fee is charged by the department in country areas, there is the construction process; preparation of the scope of works; preparation of contract documentation; preparation of detailed pre-tender documents; calling of tenders; tender evaluation; awarding of the contract; contract administration; and ensuring that the job is completed to appropriate standards of quality and safety for the children in our schools. This is about the expenditure of public money. Of course, there has to be an appropriate tender process, which has to be paid for. It should also be noted that this is not just about construction projects. Under the Investing in our Schools program, schools receive money for the purchase of playground equipment, computer equipment, musical instruments and teaching aids. They are purchases in which DHW does not get involved. It is pretty interesting when one goes through the statements in this one-page document to see how many untruths there are, and when one goes through his interview on radio 6PR this morning, one can find more. I found pretty astounding his comment to Simon Beaumont that the government in essence was playing politics with education, which was a definite no-no. In fact, only one person has played politics with education, and that is Hon Peter Collier, and he has made a definite boo-boo.
The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Federal grants are made directly to our schools. The principals have enough to do running the schools, so they do not manage construction projects. Schools in the metropolitan area contract an organisation, or someone known as an arranger, to manage the project. It is only in the country that the Department of Housing and Works manages the projects. Currently, the department has only $18 million in works out of the Investing in our Schools program logged into the system. Of that, the department has so far invoiced $6 million worth of projects, with fees totalling only $810 000 rather than the $8 million Hon Peter Collier has claimed. If we extrapolated that figure to the $18 million that the department expects to handle from the pool of money, it would amount to just over $2 million. That is nothing like the $8 million claimed by Hon Peter Collier. How has he got it so wrong? I think he has looked at the global amount, the $66 million available under the funding, and lumped the whole lot together and assumed they are all capital works projects and that DHW would take a percentage of the $66 million. Wrong. Contrary to what Hon Peter Collier has suggested, a range of things are funded other than construction processes. For example, when a fee is charged by the department in country areas, there is the construction process; preparation of the scope of works; preparation of contract documentation; preparation of detailed pre-tender documents; calling of tenders; tender evaluation; awarding of the contract; contract administration; and ensuring that the job is completed to appropriate standards of quality and safety for the children in our schools. This is about the expenditure of public money. Of course, there has to be an appropriate tender process, which has to be paid for. It should also be noted that this is not just about construction projects. Under the Investing in our Schools program, schools receive money for the purchase of playground equipment, computer equipment, musical instruments and teaching aids. They are purchases in which DHW does not get involved. It is pretty interesting when one goes through the statements in this one-page document to see how many untruths there are, and when one goes through his interview on radio 6PR this morning, one can find more. I found pretty astounding his comment to Simon Beaumont that the government in essence was playing politics with education, which was a definite no-no. In fact, only one person has played politics with education, and that is Hon Peter Collier, and he has made a definite boo-boo.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Federal grants are made directly to our schools. The principals have enough to do running the schools, so they do not manage construction projects. Schools in the metropolitan area contract an organisation, or someone known as an arranger, to manage the project. It is only in the country that the Department of Housing and Works manages the projects. Currently, the department has only $18 million in works out of the Investing in our Schools program logged into the system. Of that, the department has so far invoiced $6 million worth of projects, with fees totalling only $810 000 rather than the $8 million Hon Peter Collier has claimed. If we extrapolated that figure to the $18 million that the department expects to handle from the pool of money, it would amount to just over $2 million. That is nothing like the $8 million claimed by Hon Peter Collier. How has he got it so wrong? I think he has looked at the global amount, the $66 million available under the funding, and lumped the whole lot together and assumed they are all capital works projects and that DHW would take a percentage of the $66 million. Wrong. Contrary to what Hon Peter Collier has suggested, a range of things are funded other than construction processes. For example, when a fee is charged by the department in country areas, there is the construction process; preparation of the scope of works; preparation of contract documentation; preparation of detailed pre-tender documents; calling of tenders; tender evaluation; awarding of the contract; contract administration; and ensuring that the job is completed to appropriate standards of quality and safety for the children in our schools. This is about the expenditure of public money. Of course, there has to be an appropriate tender process, which has to be paid for. It should also be noted that this is not just about construction projects. Under the Investing in our Schools program, schools receive money for the purchase of playground equipment, computer equipment, musical instruments and teaching aids. They are purchases in which DHW does not get involved. It is pretty interesting when one goes through the statements in this one-page document to see how many untruths there are, and when one goes through his interview on radio 6PR this morning, one can find more. I found pretty astounding his comment to Simon Beaumont that the government in essence was playing politics with education, which was a definite no-no. In fact, only one person has played politics with education, and that is Hon Peter Collier, and he has made a definite boo-boo.
It is pretty interesting when one goes through the statements in this one-page document to see how many untruths there are, and when one goes through his interview on radio 6PR this morning, one can find more. I found pretty astounding his comment to Simon Beaumont that the government in essence was playing politics with education, which was a definite no-no. In fact, only one person has played politics with education, and that is Hon Peter Collier, and he has made a definite boo-boo.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.