Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are quite right; he ought not do that, at all. In his speech the member for Sturt talked about computers in schools and about our program to put laptops in schools. At least we have a program; we have a policy; we have an education revolution. The strongest policy the opposition had in terms of getting computers in schools was to provide slate tablets and chalk! That is about the extent of any commitment they had to the education future of young Australians.

It is a bit rich when opposition members come in here wanting to attack us on education, of all things, when for the past decade plus they did the least they possibly could. They did not just take the easy road; they took the sloppiest, easiest, cheapest, nastiest road they possibly could. So I do get a little annoyed when opposition members come in here and start to rant about education policy and about us actually putting extra funds, to the tune of billions of dollars, into schools to try and make a difference.

It will take some time to make that difference because we have a lot of catch-up work to do after what we were left—the legacy of the former government, the Howard government, who diminished schools. The extent of their education program, in terms of trying to provide a future to children in schools, was to provide a steel post—a steel post called a flagpole. I support the flag and I loved the idea of having a flagpole in schools, but you have to do a little more than that. So it is a bit sloppy of them to come into this place and try to attack us on these issues.

Today we are talking about the Nation-building Funds (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008, which is one of the most significant pieces of infrastructure legislation this country has seen. It is about an economic boost; it is about productivity; it is about efficiency. And it comes at a critical time: a time when Australia needs to be looking to the future, insulating itself and providing the best possible way forward in terms of dealing with the significant global financial crisis—a deep crisis which is affecting the United States principally but which is also flowing on to every other country in the world. We cannot just sit back and let that happen.

The beauty of what we have done is that this is not a knee-jerk reaction to the global financial crisis, although it fits perfectly with what you would do in any circumstance, regardless; this is something that has been carefully thought through and considered for quite a number of years. Contained in these bills are policies and matters that we have been discussing for years and around which we have been developing policies. And we are delivering on that. So regardless of whether there was a financial crisis we would do this. Why would we do this? Why would we go through with this regardless of whether there was a global financial crisis? The answer is simple: because it is good for all Australians. It is good for the future of the Australian economy. This legislation will provide the basis by which we continue to grow, whether there are financial problems in the world or not. We may be growing slowly, but this will ameliorate some of those international problems that we face.

The nation-building funds bills that we are talking about today establish three new nation-building funds, very important ones. The Building Australia Fund, which I have talked about a number of times; the Health and Hospitals Fund, which I think is critically important so as to get the health infrastructure and policy framework right in Australia; and something that is very close to my heart, the Education Investment Fund, because I think that is how we provide a platform for young Australians to be the best they possibly can to give this country a decent shot at competing with our competitors to make sure that we do not slip behind, which is what is taking place. We are slipping behind the rest of the world. We cannot just hang our hat on an old book and say: ‘You know, we’re pretty smart and we do things pretty well in Australia. We’re innovative and competitive and we can go out there on the international stage and we can compete with our neighbours.’ While we are busy patting ourselves on the back, our neighbours have been very quietly and busily educating themselves. They have been spending more and more, as a percentage of GDP, of their total government revenues on further educating their young people and educating their nations. However, in this country, for the past decade or so, the government has been more than happy to ride on the old adage of: ‘Look, it’s good enough. Let’s not interrupt what’s currently in place.’

That is not good enough. There is a saying that I love: if you are not moving forward, if you are standing still, then you are actually going backwards. And by standing still for the past decade, that is exactly what we have done: we have gone backwards, and in a significant way. Everybody else who is in this race, the global race, the competitive race to stay in front, has moved forward a long way ahead of us. We have slipped behind. We have slipped behind in infrastructure. Countries which were once looking to us for guidance and policy direction and a future on how we deal with our infrastructure development in Australia no longer look toward us. We now turn and look towards them because we have fallen behind. When it comes to health provision and the state of our hospitals and doctors and training in this country, we have slipped behind. We have allowed other countries in our immediate region to get in front of us. And they have done a good job. They have worked very hard, they have had some vision about where they ought to be, but we have slipped behind.

When it comes to education, the evidence is stark. How can anybody come into this place and possibly defend the policies of old when you have a look at what the results are? We are not still debating these old, dead issues, but the opposition are. They are still the party of Work Choices. They are still the party of failed education policies which have left our young kids unable to match the competitive education standards of our neighbours. They are still the party of the old policies. They still have not gotten through that. And every once in a while you will hear them in here saying, ‘Look, we’ll support it, we’ll support that there are going to be fair workplace laws in this country,’ but deep down they do not believe that. They just say they support that because they know they have no political choice. Political judgements, ideological judgements from this mob, who once were in power now really struggle with the concept of being in opposition—although I have to say this: they do not struggle with opposition in one sense; they have taken to it like ducks to water. They are the natural party of opposition. They can take the high moral ground, they can get on their high horses, they can bat on about everything, have a different policy view every single day—twice a day, it does not really matter. They are in opposition; they are happy to be there. They have not quite worked out that they are in opposition, even though they have really taken to it like ducks to water, but this is the conundrum they face. Two leaders in 12 months; I am sure there is another leader in the waiting.

The member for Higgins, Peter Costello, the once so-called great Treasurer—he thought he was the greatest thing that ever happened to this country—talks about the legacy that he left us. After 12 years, what did he leave us? If he is so great, why aren’t we better insulated against the global financial crisis? If the member for Higgins was such a genius Treasurer, how come the day after he resigned—sorry, the day after he was no longer—

See this speech in context