http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/just-64pc-of-ber-spent-on-building/story-e6frgczx-1226144931299

LESS than two-thirds of the $3.4 billion spent on the Building the Education Revolution school building stimulus scheme in NSW was actually spent constructing buildings.

Just 64 per cent of the BER funds allocated to NSW public schools went towards building costs. The remainder was spent on "agency and management fees", "unique project costs" and "external works and services".

By comparison, in NSW independent schools, 90 per cent of BER funding went towards construction costs, while the figure was 88 per cent for Catholic schools in the state.

In other states, construction costs ranged from 74 per cent to 91 per cent of all spending on BER projects in public schools.

The scale of the waste under the BER has again come into focus after construction giant Hansen Yuncken, which was responsible for project blowouts under the scheme worth millions of dollars, received an industry award last week for project management for its handling of the BER.

Hansen Yuncken and Engineers Australia, which presented the award, have refused to comment on the award.

In Victorian public schools, 74 per cent of BER spending went towards construction costs, compared with 90 per cent for both Catholic and independent schools in the state.

Victorian and NSW public schools, which accounted for 37 per cent of the entire program, were host to the largest cost blowouts under the stimulus program.

The $14 million taskforce into the BER, headed by former investment banker Brad Orgill, has said much of the costs blowouts in NSW resulted from high fees paid to managing contractors.

"The taskforce view is that the very high total project costs for (the) NSW government reflects in part the relatively high fees paid to managing contractors (20-24 per cent)," it said.

Overdue repairs and infrastructure upgrades added to the vastly inflated cost of buildings delivered to NSW and Victorian public schools, but that figure has not been broken down by the taskforce. Mr Orgill was unavailable for comment yesterday.

The vast differences in building prices paid by government and non-government schools was highlighted by the inquiry's final report, which found NSW government schools had paid on average $3509 per square metre for halls delivered under the program, compared with NSW independent schools, which had paid on average just $1988/sq m.

NSW public schools were charged $3285/sq m for classrooms while NSW Catholic schools paid on average just $2204/sq m.

The former NSW Labor government was criticised over its centralised delivery and poor communication with principals.

The NSW and Victorian governments had not been well-enough skilled to negotiate that use of managing contractors, the taskforce has said.

In the wake of the BER blowouts, NSW Education Minister Adrian Piccoli said last month the government would start a process of consultation on "empowering local public schools".

honestly its a given anything run by a govt will always cost more and provide less..and with Labor we can almost double it..

I personally would like a long list of waste that goes on with all govts... we are entitled to know what happens to our money..

if we dont demand better accountability then we will never get it.. those in charge dont have to answer to anyone do they?

we in a way are shareholders.. imagine shareholders putting up with this news from a private business.

cods wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 8:45am:

honestly its a given anything run by a govt will always cost more and provide less..and with Labor we can almost double it.. I personally would like a long list of waste that goes on with all govts... we are entitled to know what happens to our money.. if we dont demand better accountability then we will never get it.. those in charge dont have to answer to anyone do they? we in a way are shareholders.. imagine shareholders putting up with this news from a private business.

I came back from South-East Asian 3 weeks ago and the figures from the Australian BER is very similar ie they take 40% in management fees as well and this is in a corrupt system so what does that say about how Labor managed this system

Maqqa wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 8:48am:

cods wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 8:45am: honestly its a given anything run by a govt will always cost more and provide less..and with Labor we can almost double it.. I personally would like a long list of waste that goes on with all govts... we are entitled to know what happens to our money.. if we dont demand better accountability then we will never get it.. those in charge dont have to answer to anyone do they? we in a way are shareholders.. imagine shareholders putting up with this news from a private business. I came back from South-East Asian 3 weeks ago and the figures from the Australian BER is very similar ie they take 40% in management fees as well and this is in a corrupt system so what does that say about how Labor managed this system

in a word CORRUPT!

of course one could say incompetent...but the left thinks thats harsh.

I have been saying for some time that they must be putting something in the water to dumb-down the IQ’s of Australians, because this kind of incompetence from a Government in any other country simply wouldn’t be tolerated by the population, and it makes me wonder why ‘Aussies’ are just sitting back accepting this garbage leadership.

Its time these scum-bag politicians were held accountable for every cent they spend.  

Imagine if these idiots like Gillard and her clown brigade could squander the same amount of money in a private sector job and then continue wasting money as an employee without consequences.

That’s right folks, the business would go bust, and that’s what’s happening to the country all the time and why we the people are always broke and taxed 30% of our income.

We are constantly putting the same idiots into power who don’t know what they are doing, and then we expect change.  Some people who vote for the major political parties like Labor & Liberal think that by these parasites being in opposition for a 3 year period is punishment enough and they have learnt their lesson - the thing is, this political parties and Politicians “will never” learn their lessons, because they are addicted to abusing their power and control that the stupid people gave away to them for nothing…

The people need to start taking power away from the Governments, not giving them more.  

36% spent on non-building?? that is a disgrace! the trouble witht he report on BER which said they did a good job was that the standards they employed were so low it was easy to meet them.

what a disgrace!

Everyone understood to ideas behind the Labor schemes, and thought they were good ideas, but the planning and Management would have been better implemented by an 8 year at a  “Lemonade” stand than a whole contingent of Labor representatives.

I have never seen this kind of incompetent bungling in my life in business.

culldav wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 10:01am:

Everyone understood to ideas behind the Labor schemes, and thought they were good ideas, but the planning and Management would have been better implemented by an 8 year at a  “Lemonade” stand than a whole contingent of Labor representatives. I have never seen this kind of incompetent bungling in my life in business.

That's the main issue between the left and right

The left are dreamers and the right are realists - you need a balance

Dreamers aren't very good at operational issues

Whereas the right are so realists that they at times become to regimental

This is why a centre-right government will make Australia more prosperous than a centre-left

And a centre-left government is preferred over extreme left government

Howard/Costello would always be better on balance than Hawke/Keating

But Hawke/Keating will always be better than Rudd/Gillard

What's worse is the Rudd/Gillard team was further left driven by the Greens doctrines

Maqqa wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 12:15pm:

culldav wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 10:01am: Everyone understood to ideas behind the Labor schemes, and thought they were good ideas, but the planning and Management would have been better implemented by an 8 year at a  “Lemonade” stand than a whole contingent of Labor representatives. I have never seen this kind of incompetent bungling in my life in business. That's the main issue between the left and right The left are dreamers and the right are realists - you need a balance Dreamers aren't very good at operational issues Whereas the right are so realists that they at times become to regimental This is why a centre-right government will make Australia more prosperous than a centre-left And a centre-left government is preferred over extreme left government Howard/Costello would always be better on balance than Hawke/Keating But Hawke/Keating will always be better than Rudd/Gillard What's worse is the Rudd/Gillard team was further left driven by the Greens doctrines

Without Hawke/Keating, Howard/Costello would not have had the economy they did.
Howard had done all he was going to do with the Campbell report, the stuff left may(well did) require guts, and would cost votes.
I'll not try and defend NSW Labor, who would, but stop trying to pass off the benifits of Keatings guts, vision and desire to see Australia succeed as Howards/Costello's work. >:(

Quote:

Howard had done all he was going to do with the Campbell report, the stuff left may(well did) require guts, and would cost votes. I'll not try and defend NSW Labor, who would, but stop trying to pass off the benifits of Keatings guts, vision and desire to see Australia succeed as Howards/Costello's work.

By dsmithy


In 1979, Treasurer Howard established a committee of inquiry, the Campbell Committee, to investigate these matters, and it was clear from the composition of the Committee that it was likely that it would favour a move to a less regulated financial system. In the event, it did, when it reported 2-1/2 years later. And the implementation of its recommendations, at first under the Fraser government and later, on a bigger scale, under the Hawke government, transformed the Australian financial system and much of the economy as well. The reform process did not wait until the Committee's report had been fully digested and a number of changes were implemented between 1979 and 1982. One was the removal of all interest rate ceilings on bank deposits, but the most important change was the introduction of the tender system for the sale of Treasury notes in 1979, and Treasury bonds in 1982. This changed the method of selling government securities was a major reform, which has not been accorded the recognition it deserves It was second only in importance to the float of the Australian dollar in 1983..

BOYER LECTURES, Lecture 3, REFORM AND DEREGULATION, Ian McFarlane, former reserve bank governor

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 1:12pm:

Without Hawke/Keating, Howard/Costello would not have had the economy they did. Howard had done all he was going to do with the Campbell report, the stuff left may(well did) require guts, and would cost votes. I'll not try and defend NSW Labor, who would, but stop trying to pass off the benifits of Keatings guts, vision and desire to see Australia succeed as Howards/Costello's work. >:(

:D :D :D

stryder wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 1:19pm:

Quote: Howard had done all he was going to do with the Campbell report, the stuff left may(well did) require guts, and would cost votes. I'll not try and defend NSW Labor, who would, but stop trying to pass off the benifits of Keatings guts, vision and desire to see Australia succeed as Howards/Costello's work. By dsmithy In 1979, Treasurer Howard established a committee of inquiry, the Campbell Committee, to investigate these matters, and it was clear from the composition of the Committee that it was likely that it would favour a move to a less regulated financial system. In the event, it did, when it reported 2-1/2 years later. And the implementation of its recommendations, at first under the Fraser government and later, on a bigger scale, under the Hawke government, transformed the Australian financial system and much of the economy as well. The reform process did not wait until the Committee's report had been fully digested and a number of changes were implemented between 1979 and 1982. One was the removal of all interest rate ceilings on bank deposits, but the most important change was the introduction of the tender system for the sale of Treasury notes in 1979, and Treasury bonds in 1982. This changed the method of selling government securities was a major reform, which has not been accorded the recognition it deserves It was second only in importance to the float of the Australian dollar in 1983.. BOYER LECTURES, Lecture 3, REFORM AND DEREGULATION, Ian McFarlane, former reserve bank governor

Like I said, Howard did stuff and fidling with treasurey bonds whilst an inportant thing is still not a difficult reform and certainly not a vote loser with average joe.
Abolishion of tarrifs, pegging wages to productiveity, deregulation,floating the dollar, these are the tough vote loseing but necessary reforms Howard baulked at and Keating took the hits for.

OH yes government incompetence in financial matters is of great concern so we remember the way the government ripped off mum's and 'dad's on the telstra vote and how about the national gold reserve that was sold for what was it $250 an ounce. poo imagine what that would be worth to us now.

36% seems a lot but where did that go, let's see. Architect, draftsman, BCA consultant, Fire protection consultant, engineering certification, OH&S review, Quantity surveyor, estimator, tendering process, project management fee, department of commerce management fee, independent certifier and then probably a couple of other specialists such as the design consultants that i have missed, oh and any school that is old has old buildings or is in a heritage precinct will need a heritage consultant. Now despite the idea that maqqa has, that you just slap some crap up cheap as you can because it is only our schools and our kids and government should do it at bargin discout prices, the Department has a responsibility to get it right for the longer term, these buildings need to be serviceable for 40 years then they need to be able to renovate them for further service.

Yes i agree 36% is a bit much but not miles too much and under the circumstances of the project probably an acceptable factor. maqqa always amazes me with how he infers his understanding but hasn't a clue. Building is very complex outside of domestic housing and schools carry special significance because they are full of children. Schools are a Class 9B building and carry specific requirements when design is done for structure, fire ratings and materials, these also add to cost. The NSW department also set standards on materials and you must be an accredited tenderer before you can even place a tender to get a job. This requires companies to go to great lengths to gain this status but assures standards in child safety and finnish. Materials are not the cheap rubbish used in you current McMansions that by the way are appalling rubbish.  Somehow the right wing nuts just miss that when they blindly go attacking. This government does not need any extra help to look hopeless, but this type of rubbish is what erodes the quality of debate and leads me to believe that the electorate are as thick as the bricks of their houses.

Quote:

Just 64 per cent of the BER funds allocated to NSW public schools went towards building costs. The remainder was spent on "agency and management fees", "unique project costs" and "external works and services". By comparison, in NSW independent schools, 90 per cent of BER funding went towards construction costs, while the figure was 88 per cent for Catholic schools in the state. In other states, construction costs ranged from 74 per cent to 91 per cent of all spending on BER projects in public schools.

And that is the way of ALL Federal, state and local government building projects WITH or WITHOUT the Building Education Revolution and GFC stimulus

The way it has ALWAYS been - and the way it will always BE


MUCH of it is money "on paper" - with one government department "billing" another for its contributions over the life of the project

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 1:12pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 12:15pm: culldav wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 10:01am: Everyone understood to ideas behind the Labor schemes, and thought they were good ideas, but the planning and Management would have been better implemented by an 8 year at a  “Lemonade” stand than a whole contingent of Labor representatives. I have never seen this kind of incompetent bungling in my life in business. That's the main issue between the left and right The left are dreamers and the right are realists - you need a balance Dreamers aren't very good at operational issues Whereas the right are so realists that they at times become to regimental This is why a centre-right government will make Australia more prosperous than a centre-left And a centre-left government is preferred over extreme left government Howard/Costello would always be better on balance than Hawke/Keating But Hawke/Keating will always be better than Rudd/Gillard What's worse is the Rudd/Gillard team was further left driven by the Greens doctrines Without Hawke/Keating, Howard/Costello would not have had the economy they did. Howard had done all he was going to do with the Campbell report, the stuff left may(well did) require guts, and would cost votes. I'll not try and defend NSW Labor, who would, but stop trying to pass off the benifits of Keatings guts, vision and desire to see Australia succeed as Howards/Costello's work. >:(

it wasnt just keating. that is as myopic as saying it was all howard. our economic strength is testament to the efforts of both keating and costello. that is a far more non-partisan and accurate view.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 2:38pm:

stryder wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 1:19pm: Quote: Howard had done all he was going to do with the Campbell report, the stuff left may(well did) require guts, and would cost votes. I'll not try and defend NSW Labor, who would, but stop trying to pass off the benifits of Keatings guts, vision and desire to see Australia succeed as Howards/Costello's work. By dsmithy In 1979, Treasurer Howard established a committee of inquiry, the Campbell Committee, to investigate these matters, and it was clear from the composition of the Committee that it was likely that it would favour a move to a less regulated financial system. In the event, it did, when it reported 2-1/2 years later. And the implementation of its recommendations, at first under the Fraser government and later, on a bigger scale, under the Hawke government, transformed the Australian financial system and much of the economy as well. The reform process did not wait until the Committee's report had been fully digested and a number of changes were implemented between 1979 and 1982. One was the removal of all interest rate ceilings on bank deposits, but the most important change was the introduction of the tender system for the sale of Treasury notes in 1979, and Treasury bonds in 1982. This changed the method of selling government securities was a major reform, which has not been accorded the recognition it deserves It was second only in importance to the float of the Australian dollar in 1983.. BOYER LECTURES, Lecture 3, REFORM AND DEREGULATION, Ian McFarlane, former reserve bank governor Like I said, Howard did stuff and fidling with treasurey bonds whilst an inportant thing is still not a difficult reform and certainly not a vote loser with average joe. Abolishion of tarrifs, pegging wages to productiveity, deregulation,floating the dollar, these are the tough vote loseing but necessary reforms Howard baulked at and Keating took the hits for.

and the GST - originally Keatings preferred option - had to wait until Howard and it was the biggest tax reform in 30 years.

lets not pretend that keating is the only reformer. so was howard and so was Costello. but you cAN say that Swan has done zero reforms.

Spot the spin!!!

Thread title.....

Just 64% of BER spent on buildings

Article.....

Just 64 per cent of the BER funds allocated to NSW public schools went towards building costs

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 4:34pm:

Spot the spin!!! Thread title..... Just 64% of BER spent on buildings Article..... Just 64 per cent of the BER funds allocated to NSW public schools went towards building costs

Spot the hypocrisy

Your first instinct is to defend the Labor party despite your veil pretense of being neutral

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 3:18pm:

Quote: Just 64 per cent of the BER funds allocated to NSW public schools went towards building costs. The remainder was spent on "agency and management fees", "unique project costs" and "external works and services". By comparison, in NSW independent schools, 90 per cent of BER funding went towards construction costs, while the figure was 88 per cent for Catholic schools in the state. In other states, construction costs ranged from 74 per cent to 91 per cent of all spending on BER projects in public schools. And that is the way of ALL Federal, state and local government building projects WITH or WITHOUT the Building Education Revolution and GFC stimulus The way it has ALWAYS been - and the way it will always BE MUCH of it is money "on paper" - with one government department "billing" another for its contributions over the life of the project

Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations
Leader of the Government in the Senate
8 July, 2011 Media release
Government welcomes final BER implementation report



The Australian Government today released the final report of the Building the Education Revolution (BER) Implementation Taskforce.

Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, Senator Chris Evans, welcomed the independent taskforce’s thorough investigative work and said the Government has agreed to progress all five recommendations in the report.

“The Taskforce’s report shows that overall the BER was a success, with the majority of education authorities found to have attained value for money and delivered quality facilities,” Senator Evans said.

“This was an enormous undertaking involving nearly 24 000 construction projects.
I am pleased to see more than 92 per cent of projects are now complete and the vast majority of schools and communities are enjoying the benefits of their new facilities.

“The Australian Government is committed to ensuring that all projects are completed to a high level of quality with the best possible outcomes for school communities.”

“The Taskforce also notes the majority of school principals expressed appreciation for major new investment in school infrastructure which will deliver improved educational outcomes and is highly appreciated by their school communities.

“This investment has transformed the learning environment for thousands of students across Australia.

“Modern and innovative learning spaces, libraries and classrooms, language centres and science laboratories will improve the educational outcomes for students of all ages and this will be the permanent legacy of this historic program”

Earlier independent research commissioned by the Taskforce showed the BER made a material contribution to Australia’s economic growth and was projected to support around 120 000 jobs over the life of the program.

“As well as delivering high quality, much-needed facilities to our schools, the BER helped protect the Australian economy from the full effects of the global financial crisis,” Senator Evans said.

“The BER kept industry going, kept people in jobs and kept skills in our economy”


http://www.deewr.gov.au/ministers/evans/media/releases/pages/article_110708_151614.aspx

The trouble with the report Buzzard is that the targets are so low it is easy to call it a success.  after all, it was a STIMULUS project not a school building project. its major criteria was spending monmey which labor has always done well. but spend it wisely? no. cost benefit? whats that? and spending 36% of a project on non-building??  only in a government can that be considered a job well done.

Now when there is a REAL report on the BER that looks at the results using commercial guidleines like value for money, suitability etc. THAT will ahve a different outcome!

Maqqa wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 5:00pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 4:34pm: Spot the spin!!! Thread title..... Just 64% of BER spent on buildings Article..... Just 64 per cent of the BER funds allocated to NSW public schools went towards building costs Spot the hypocrisy Your first instinct is to defend the Labor party despite your veil pretense of being neutral

Actually maqqa as per the normal you are full of it. Phill has a good point, i can not find the numbers off hand but WA had a much better ratio of cost to building success on the BER over there demonstrating that the problem was a state one. And mostly centred around state labor. You really need to get the separation worked out for yourself before you rave.

The neo cons would rather we were sucked into the vortex of the GFC than spend money to keep our economy ticking along.
Instead of going to work, enjoying good incomes and economic growth and enjoying weekends with friends and family we would all be standing in line at soup kitchens begging for scraps from the Packers and Murdochs if we had followed Abbott economic policies when the GFC hit.
Even if Gillard gets booted out in 2 yrs time lets just be thankful Abbott was not at the reigns when we needed a steady hand to guide us through the GFC.