Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is interesting that, once again, a member of the government, in this case the member for Deakin, has spent at least half of his speech talking about the opposition instead of their own track record. You would expect that, after 11 years of government, which they crow about on a daily basis, they would take the time to actually talk through their own budget in this appropriation speech. But they do not, and the reason for that is simple: the purpose of this budget was not to put things into focus; it was about taking problem areas off the agenda. It was about doing just enough in areas which had been neglected for 11 years—areas such as child care, tertiary education and climate change—just enough gloss, just enough of a bandaid to take the public’s attention off them, not on them. In fact, there is very little in this budget after 11 years of government that the government should be crowing about. It is not surprising that we are not hearing much of it in the House.

On budget night I, like many people on my side of politics, went into the House a little bit nervous. We heard rumours of massive spending. We were expecting a profound budget which would make a real difference but, as I sat there and listened to the speech and read the documents in front of me, two-thirds of the way through I started thinking: ‘There’s really not much in this. They’ve filled a few holes that they created themselves, they’ve put in a little bit of spin, they’ve repackaged some projects, they’ve reannounced a couple of projects and they’ve brought forward some projects from the last election.’ But this budget will flow across the community and in six months time there will be very little left to show for it.

Going out in the community, as I did the week after the budget, that is the view that was pretty much shared by people whom I spoke to. The budget flowed across their focus for a minute and pretty much disappeared. It was very much business as usual. When people did have something to say about small amounts of money that had been referred to in this way or that way, it was usually preceded by the statement that the problem had been going on for 11 years and, ‘Thank goodness something was finally being done, but it’s all a little bit too late.’

This is a budget which will flow across the community and, like this government, unfortunately, leave very little behind. At a time of one of the greatest booms that Australia has ever seen and a global boom greater than we have seen in 30 years, one would expect these are the times when governments do actually make a difference. When you sit down in the future and look back at 11 years of this phenomenal amount of money flowing around the world, and ask: ‘What difference did the Howard government make to the education of our children? What difference did it make to our cities, our public transport system and our infrastructure? What difference did it make to our exports? What difference did it make to our education levels?’ the answer would have to be in the negative in most of these areas.

Let us look at the Higher Education Endowment Fund, for example. Let’s face it: a $5 billion fund that will bring around $300 million per year to universities for research facilities is to be welcomed. But you have to put it in the context that there has been 11 years of neglect. Government funding to universities fell from 0.9 per cent of GDP in 1996 to 0.6 per cent today. The initial funding will provide $300 million per year to upgrade university facilities spread across each of our 38 universities. That is between $7 million and $8 million per university, if it is spread that way. If larger facilities are funded—and we now know of facilities that cost between $150 million and $350 million—then it will not go very far.

I went to the Rydalmere campus last year for the opening of a new building. Across all of the University of Western Sydney’s campuses, that was the first building in nine years—one building in nine years under this government. This fund provides enough to fund one building and some maintenance. With 38 universities the fund would provide one facility every 38 years plus a bit of maintenance—do not forget there is maintenance and minor upgrades as well. So if your five-year-old grows up and has a baby, when that child, your granddaughter, reaches university, there will be a new building. When that child graduates and goes to work at the university as a professor, just as she retires, there will be another building.

So let us put this $5 billion in context. If this $5 billion came on top of 11 years of support for this sector then it would be something this government could be very proud of. But to throw this amount of money after 11 years of neglect and then crow about it and call it an education revolution is beyond the pale. This is not an education revolution; this is a fix-it after 11 years of neglect. This is a bandaid—the level of neglect has been so great that this is merely a bandaid. I am almost expecting to see an advertising campaign about it, though, because the government is very good at those these days, if not at much else.

The people of Western Sydney deserve much better than this; after 11 years of the Howard government, they deserve much better. The people in Western Sydney still enrol in universities at just over half the rate of the rest of Sydney. The member opposite smiles; obviously he thinks that is funny. I tell you, no member in Western Sydney finds it funny that our children—

See this speech in context