Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

Here we end a week watching the continued political humiliation of the Liberal Party. They spent all weekend talking up an unprecedented attack on me as minister. This was going to be the week where they really delivered and here we have seen, limping around four days later, the biggest shot in their armoury having been whether or not I have got back to the member for Bradfield about a diary matter—and, as it transpires, we did get back to the member for Bradfield and I have just supplied to him our email from June where we are awaiting a reply. Something that started with so much fizz has gone so flat. Why is that? If you are actually going to come into this parliament and traverse the important public policy issues of our time and certainly education, the development of human capital, its intersection with the nation’s economic future, its intersection with the nation’s future equity—if you are going to traverse issues like that—you need to do some work.

Unfortunately for the opposition, the shadow minister for education likes to strut in parliament but he does not like to work. That is why here we are after almost two years of the Rudd Labor government, almost two years of the Liberal Party in opposition, with not one policy idea and not one substantial contribution to the education debate. After I chided him about his website only having one speech on it outside parliament for this year, he has clamoured around and managed to add a second, but not one substantial idea is the Liberal Party bringing to the most crucial debate facing this nation.

Let us just very quickly go through those crucial debates and the lack of ideas. With early childhood learning, we moved into government and inherited Australia at the back of the OECD class. We are moving in a range of areas to make a profound difference in early learning. What are the opposition policies on that? On school education and transparency, we have got a position articulated by the New South Wales Leader of the Opposition—he is opposed to it. Where does the Liberal Party truly stand on that? On the issue of more resources for disadvantaged schools, our national partnership that will make a difference for those kids that need it the most and for whom education is the crucial difference between a life spent at society’s margins or in its mainstream, what is the Liberal Party’s attitude to those profound equity issues as they confront our nation? What is the Liberal Party’s attitude to the future of teaching? We are a government that has already delivered a program that is bringing the best teachers to the most disadvantaged schools that need them the most and paying the more to do so. This is a government that is already delivering a new cohort through Teach for Australia, the best and brightest graduates preparing to teach in the most disadvantaged schools in this country. What does the Liberal Party say on those profound issues about the future of teaching and getting the best in front of the classrooms where they are needed the most?

What do they say about the future of literacy and numeracy development, knowing that, if you do not get that foundation stone of learning, education may be locked away from you for the rest of your life? What do they say about those future programs? What should be done to make sure that, in international testing, we do not see disadvantaged kids left behind? Silence—absolute silence. What do they say to our programs to change vocational education and training? What do they say to the most profound set of reforms in universities since the Dawkins reforms of the 1980s? On all of these things we hear an amazing silence.

I notice that Matthew Franklin, from the Australian, is in the gallery. I have had an occasional thing to say about the Australian. The good thing about the Australian is that they love a good debate—and I frequently give them one. I refer the shadow minister to the editorial of the Australian, which is not necessarily known for giving me the best assessments. It recorded that there have been more reforms delivered in education by me, as minister, and this government in two years than in the 12 years of the Liberal alternative. That is the conclusion of a broadsheet newspaper that proudly defines itself as Centre Right. Never, I suspect, has a more damning criticism been made of a conservative party in opposition than that a Centre Right broadsheet could come to that conclusion so quickly.

Let us go to the Building the Education Revolution program, because I want to have this debate. At the program’s very heart is a debate about jobs and the future of our schools—jobs today and modernising schools for the future. The quality of learning facilities matters, but it is not the only thing that matters in quality of education. Great teaching matters, resources for disadvantaged kids matter, literacy and numeracy matter and getting the best graduates in there matters—it all matters. But doing it in good learning spaces and libraries matters. Learning to read and write, having good libraries, having good classrooms and having areas where the whole school can assemble make a difference to learning outcomes.

Of course, this program is at the same time making a difference to jobs. On all of this—whether it is the education revolution reforms for disadvantaged kids, transparency, quality teaching, early childhood, VET, universities or Building the Education Revolution—what do we hear from the opposition? We hear no profound truths about the policy direction of this nation. The opposition can criticise, it can complain and it can carry on, but it cannot be constructive. And, by not being constructive, time after time it comes into this parliament and distorts the facts. So let us go through some of the facts that the opposition does not want acknowledged. Fact No. 1: the opposition has pointed to the reallocations within the government stimulus package and claimed that this is something to do with a blow-out in costs in Building the Education Revolution, particularly Primary Schools for the 21st Century. They have tried to create the imagery that somehow builders are inflating prices and the government has had to tip in more money. That is simply not true. More money is going into this program because it is going gangbusters, because more schools want to be in this program.

The shadow minister was profoundly embarrassed earlier this week. He had made much of this reallocation in the public media. He was out there publicly saying, ‘What sort of minister would factor in a take-up rate of 90 per cent for a program like this?’ only to find that, when they were in government, with Investing in Our Schools they factored in a take-up rate of 80 per cent and did not reallocate within an announced program and had to go back to the budget for more money. There was a cost blow-out by them in government, and the shadow minister was profoundly embarrassed when he found out about it. We have put more money into this program within the $42 billion cap for our economic stimulus plan because it is going gangbusters, because schools want to be in it.

Then in the lead-up to this week—and I note that this has not even made a starting appearance in question time, because it is so absurd—they were out there saying that the funding for the science and language centres has been politically rorted. The statistics in terms of the seats and all of that were running in the newspapers. They never even asked about it in the parliament. Why not? Because we had an independent assessment panel deal with this matter. We acted on the recommendations of that panel—and 53 per cent of the money for the science and language centres went to Labor electorates, whereas we hold 55 per cent of the seats. So there they are, trying to create this imagery of rorting, and of course all of that falls away when they are confronted with the facts. They were smart enough to realise that and not even ask about it this week. They smear us outside and do not even bring it into the parliament.

Then they have tried to create the imagery that there is no flexibility in this program. I have been to schools where people have purpose-designed the facility they want, and they are delighted with it. So I would challenge the opposition to get out there and talk to some principals and teachers—they are delighted with their purpose-designed facilities. Then they come into this parliament and make individual claims about individual schools. They ignore the vast bulk of the program, which is rolling out well with delighted school communities, and look for the one thing where they can make a criticism. I say this to the parliament: prior to the start of this parliamentary week I did a reconciliation of the individual examples that had been raised with me to that date and, when they were looked at, two-thirds of them had no foundation in fact. They come in here and make allegations with no facts behind them. It is business as usual for the opposition—never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

The shadow minister does not like these truths—I understand that—but I have got a few more. This is a program that is supporting jobs. The shadow minister went on Radio National with Fran Kelly at the start of the week talking up the attack on me: it was going to be fast and furious, it was going to be interesting, they had all this new material—and they are down to whether or not I got back to the member for Bradfield about visiting one of his schools. There he was in his interview on Monday. He has missed the global financial crisis, missed it entirely, and consequently does not understand that there is a need to support jobs. Out there in the real economy, according to the shadow minister for education, he says that it stood out as obvious that if you are going to spend $14 billion there would be an immediate impact on inflation because there would not be enough workers, there would not be enough resources. So the shadow ministry has got this imagery that out there in the real economy: no global recession, every construction worker is wholly employed and we were going to put $14 billion on top of that.

Let us to see what the rest of the world is saying: global recession, employment in construction has gone down every month for 17 months and the construction industry and economists around the country are telling us that it is only the government’s economic stimulus that is keeping the industry turning over—including the Building the Education Revolution program. Local workers know it, local workers are saying it, builders are saying it: it is vital to support local jobs.

Then those opposite come into to this parliament and they make all sorts of claims about the cost of the recognition requirements in relation to Building the Education Revolution.

See this speech in context