Just how much of an election issue is the BER, and what will be the result? There has been no let-up to the campaign by the Coalition at both federal and state levels, driven by increasing media interest.

The different experiences of state and non-state schools has been a primary focus, with many value-for-money comparisons being drawn relating to specific projects.

Beyond the immediate politics (which are playing out as one might expect) we are watching this debate intently for its undoubted impact on future capital works funding. Tony Abbott has already signalled that his approach would be to deliver project funding directly to schools, rather than through state bureaucracies. This is a clear signal that the Coalition was pleased with the way the IOSP worked. That programme was controversial at the time because it opened a line of funding directly from the Federal Government to state school parent bodies. For its part the Rudd Government seems to be acknowledging some deficiencies in the BER - to the extent at least of establishing an inquiry to look at 'value for money' issues such as cost blow-outs and management fees (once again all the examples of these have been from the state schools sector). Julia Gillard maintains that overall the programme has been an outstanding success.

So where is it all going? All the feedback we have received from member schools is that the BER was very welcome, achieving tangible benefits in facilities that will serve communities well for some time to come. Locally managed projects have realised good value for money. In many cases schools have added their own funds to get extra leverage.

There must be a question about how much capital funding will be available once the BER phases down. In our budget commentary we have touched further on this issue. Just as the GFC led to the BER (a policy-driven stimulus measure), the need to wind back government spending and reduce the deficit will surely create a powerful imperative to wind back government capital spending.

While all schools have, by definition, had their building programmes boosted by the BER, how much funding will there be in the short-medium term for those schools that continue to grow? And what about new school development? As both parties ponder these issues, they ought to reflect on the efficiency dividend which is represented by a partnership between public funding and non-government school communities.

Indeed, the Coalition has foreshadowed a "restructure" to the BER programme, with "further funding going to school communities, not bureacracies" (Tony Abbott, budget speech-in-reply, May 13, 2010). What this means for non-government schools has not been made clear (as this is the context in which we operate anyway).

As the BER seems to be showing, there are excellent dividends for public purposes in direct partnerships with school communities, such as those involved in our community-based Christian schools.

There are unanswered questions however, in particular about the level of future funding for growth and new schools, which neither party has addressed. We urge them to do so before the election.