Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

To reinforce the point I just made in response to the question of the honourable member, if you go to the forward estimates for this period you just see, effectively, blank, blank, blank, blank, going out beyond the period concerned. The honourable member knew that before he asked the question. I think if we are going to have an honest debate here about education policy it has to be framed in honest terms. Those opposite are here defending a policy which they constructed to conclude in 2008. The Prime Minister at the time, when he announced the last allocation of funds, said that it was ‘the final allocation’ of funds. What we have here is an entirely bogus question delivered by the member for Casey. He knows it full well. Presenting such a question to the parliament in that manner I think belittles him, frankly, in terms of the honesty which underpins him and the standing I previously held for him.

On the question of schools policy, I say this: this government is passionate about an education revolution. This government believes in investing in our schools. This government is committed to a $2.5 billion plan to construct trades training centres in every one of Australia’s secondary schools, government and non-government, right across the country and, on top of that, to deliver $1 billion over four years to ensure that our kids in year 9 and above have access to computers in schools. There is a $62.5 million plan over four years: Local Schools Working Together. These represent effective investments in building up our schools into the future. We are a party and a government who are passionate about the future of education in our country, passionate about schools, passionate about the need to invest in our schools and passionate about the future which our kids have before them, and that is why you have billions of dollars worth of new programs being invested in the future of those kids. I would have thought that the honourable member for Casey, in advancing that question, would have reflected a little more honesty in the way in which he put it forward.

See this speech in context