Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the government’s education revolution critical to building a strong economy and a fair Australia?

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

In terms of dealing practically with the challenges Australia faces for its economy and its long-term future, education is front and centre. If you go to our response to the economic challenges of today, they come at, at least, two or three levels. One level is our approach of responsible economic management to deal with global economic circumstances, anchored in a strong budget surplus, in order to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. And, coming off the back of 10 interest rate rises in a row, that is a responsible, prudent course of action, as opposed to that advocated by those opposite. That is one level of response.

The second, of course, is to make sure that we are investing in this economy’s long-term future. Our long-term future as an economy depends on how we generate long-term productivity growth. We know from the data that productivity growth has been slowing in recent years, and we know for a fact that the absence of investment in skills, education and training, together with an absence of investment in infrastructure, have been among the main drivers in the supply-side constraints in the economy which have put, in fact, upward pressure on inflation and interest rates in recent years—the subject of 20 consecutive warnings from the Reserve Bank of Australia to those opposite when they were in office and about which they did nothing.

By contrast, this government has a clear-cut course of action. When it comes to education, our course of action is this. We, through the budget, have outlined our fiscal intent to lay aside $11 billion in an education investment fund—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

I notice again a reference to slush funds by those opposite. So, when these moneys from this fund flow to a university or a TAFE college in the electorate of the honourable member who was intervening then, I presume they will not welcome that injection of funds—is that correct? Is it correct that, when it comes to an investment from the Building Australia Fund to meet high-speed broadband needs in the rural and regional electorates of Australia represented in part by the National Party, I can take it that those opposite will say, ‘No, we don’t want the connection; we actually want to make sure that internet speeds in rural and regional Australia remain as slow as they are now’? Is that what you are saying? Are you saying that, when the Building Australia Fund is dedicated to dealing with the challenges of urban congestion, those opposite will say, ‘Oh no, we don’t want that investment here. We want people simply to stay in their cars, day in, day out’? I think those opposite speak with forked tongues. When it comes to these investment funds for the future, whether that investment is in education, health or infrastructure, we have a plan for the future—as opposed to an excuse for inertia, which those opposite have.

On the education revolution, the big challenge is this: what do we do to make sure that those kids attending schools across Australia have the best quality education possible? Our starting point as a Labor government is this: it does not matter where you come from, what side of the tracks you have grown up on, you should have, through the school system, the best opportunity possible to make the most of your life. That is what galvanises us as a Labor government.

How do we do that across the school systems of the country? You can either do as our predecessors did and say, ‘Not our problem; we’ll blame the states,’ or you can engage in a creative dialogue with the states about how you can make it better. And that is what I was outlining today in an address to the National Press Club. What we have said is that we intend to embrace a reform agenda for the future on quality education for Australian schools, quality teaching for Australian schools and quality leadership for Australian schools, to ensure that we have, also, proper transparency in the public reporting of the performance of Australian schools, and, on top of that again, that we have an ability to fund and to invest in those most disadvantaged schools, to ensure that they get the best teachers, the best resources possible, to lift them to the standards of other schools.

This quality education reform agenda, which I and the Deputy Prime Minister have outlined today and on previous days, is an important next step in the education revolution that we have planned for this nation. An education revolution is necessary because we have an ambition for Australia to have, with our workforce, the best educated, best trained, best skilled workforce in the world. But you cannot just pull that out of thin air. You have to put money to the task, and you have got to put quality reforms in place as well. And the qualitative reforms that we have put forward are robust and strong.

We will engage the states and territories in the months ahead on negotiations about two new national policy partnerships: one on quality teaching, the other on those financially disadvantaged schools in low socioeconomic areas. And, on top of that, through the proposed new national education agreement, we will make it a condition of that agreement to ensure that schools in the future are performing at an optimum qualitative level for the needs of kids right across the country.

These are well thought out, concrete plans for the future. These are planned proposals with money attached. There are conditionalities attached. But our end point is clear. How do we make sure that kids in schools across the country—in the rural and regional electorates of Australia, in outer metropolitan Australia and in inner-city Australia—have the best opportunity possible to make the absolute best of their lives? We do not intend to say, ‘This is a problem for the states; this is a problem for the territories; this is a problem for anyone else apart from us.’ Instead, we are putting our shoulder to the wheel: more funds to be addressed to and injected into the school system, but based on clear-cut quality benchmarks, to ensure that we have the best teachers possible, that we have the best school leadership possible, and that we have the most appropriate funding injection possible for the most disadvantaged schools, because that is part and parcel of securing our country’s long-term economic future.

Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister and relates to his previous answer and his address to the National Press Club this afternoon. Hasn’t the Prime Minister today merely reannounced the coalition government’s legislated negotiating position with the states on education as a means of distracting Australians from the fact that they are worse off under the Rudd Labor government?

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

In preparing for the address to the National Press Club, the departmental advisers came forth with a list, I thought, of 24 reports on teaching quality prepared for the government which preceded us. And I would ask the people of Australia: what happened to those 24 reports? What happened in terms of the implementation of the recommendations which came from them? What happened?

What I can say is that this government has not an excuse for inertia but a clear plan for the future. If those opposite were serious about those reforms, if those opposite were serious about the recommendations that came to them before, they would have done one of two things: they would have put their money where their mouth was and engaged the states in a real dialogue about investing in the school’s future or they would have simply stumped up to the dispatch box and said that, for them, it was a political stunt. Absent co-investment is what it added up to. There were 24 reports—somewhat analogous, I have got to say, to all those warnings that the Reserve Bank gave the previous government about the challenges of inflation. It goes to a character failing of the previous government.

There were all of these reports rolling in the door but, at the end of the day, the previous government of Australia was not faintly interested in taking those recommendations forward and making something of them in terms of a reform agenda for the future. Worst of all, at a time when there was cash rolling in the door through the resources boom, the previous government did not use it to invest in the school needs of the future but instead squandered it through one act of consumption after another. Those opposite should hang their heads in shame.