Chris Trevor (Flynn, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline for the House the impact of the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan on Australian schools and any threats to the implementation of that plan?

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

I thank the member for Flynn for his question. I know he, like other members on this side of the House, is standing up for the delivery of the biggest single school modernisation program in Australia’s history—good for education, good for the future of our schools and good for local jobs. That is what this plan has been designed for, not just for our primary schools but also for our secondary schools in terms of the amount of money which has been dedicated to the building of science centres and language centres, as well as what we have done in the National School Pride program, in order to provide support for P&Cs and P&Fs to get on with the essential task of school maintenance.

What the government stands for is a program which delivers funding support to 9½ thousand schools across Australia: in New South Wales, 3,109 schools, $4.3 billion; in Victoria, 2,288 schools, $3.2 billion; in Queensland, 1,713 schools, $3.7 billion; in Western Australia, 1,065 schools, $1.5 billion; in South Australia, 795 schools, $1.2 billion; in Tasmania, 277 schools, $370 million; up in the Territory, 187 schools, $200 million; and, in the ACT, 128 schools, $230 million. We on this side of the chamber are delivering support to schools right across the Australian nation. For me, it defies any understanding as to why those opposite would stand resolutely opposed to delivery of $15 billion to the schools of Australia, both government and non-government, to make sure that we can get out there and support our kids with the infrastructure they need for the 21st century, the best schools possible, as well as supporting local jobs.

The member for Flynn asked me about threats to this program. Of course, the biggest single threat to this program lies in the absolute, total opposition of those opposite. Those opposite are not engaged. As we said earlier in the debate today, they are engaged instead in a parallel universe. Their interest is politics. Their interest is to say that negative economic growth in Australia is the result of the Australian government, not the global recession. Their political agenda is to say that, were they in government, they would not engage in temporary deficit and temporary borrowing—when we know that they would. Their political strategy is to hope like hell the global recession gets worse and the number of unemployed increases so they can then blame the Australian government for that. That in a nutshell is the strategy. That is what they talk about each day in their increasingly well-attended tactics meetings. Honourable members, none of that equals an economic strategy. None of it equals a strategy to support the unemployed. None of it equals a strategy to support our local schools. It is only about supporting the employment of one person—that is, the Leader of the Opposition.

It is not just this Leader of the Opposition who is on this bandwagon. I was reading the other day about the attitude of the Liberal National Party in Queensland. I would like to know whether the Liberal National Party in Queensland support or oppose the biggest school modernisation program in Queensland’s history—1,713 schools in Queensland and $3.7 billion. We know that Mr Turnbull and the Leader of the National Party are opposed to it here in Canberra. I presume the same is the case in Queensland as well. What I cannot understand is what will happen in terms of the maintenance of effort across state and territory governments nationwide. This is an important point. We have said that we will implement this program nationwide if state and territory governments maintain effort—that is, their existing investment program in schools across the country. Instead, the state Liberal National Party in Queensland have said they will pull out $1 billion each year from the Queensland state budget. So where is that going to be dealt? Where is it going to hurt? Who is going to be sacked as a result—which teachers, which nurses and which police? Mr Springborg’s campaign in Queensland rests on a $1 billion cut to the state budget, denying that it would result in thousands of job sackings across Queensland, which is an absolute, total untruth.

Mr Springborg, of the Liberal National Party, acting in tandem with those opposite, was asked this question the other day: where is the $1 billion coming from? For the benefit of those opposite, have a little listen to this. The answer from the Liberal National Party leader was: ‘I mean, the amounts that are identified, the amounts that, of course, you know, we will be, will be looking at amounts of money which we are going about finding.’ That was the definitive budget policy statement of the Leader of the Liberal National Party in Queensland. Joh Bjelke-Petersen has now come back to life in the form of Lawrence Springborg. He is being channelled. I cannot make any sense of that statement. Nobody else can make any sense of that statement. But why is it relevant to our deliberations here? It goes to the maintenance of effort on the part of the Queensland government. Every state and territory government signed up in this place to maintaining state effort. I have heard no such commitment from the Liberal National Party in Queensland. I have heard no such commitment as to whether they actually support this program in the first place. I have heard no explanation as to where the $1 billion that they are going to take out of the state budget is coming from.

I say to those opposite: the nation actually wants us to get on with reducing the impact of the global recession on Australia. The nation wants us to act in a responsible fashion, to build jobs, to build through the modernisation of schools, to get on with the business of building houses needed to bring down homelessness and to invest in energy efficiency in the ceiling insulation of homes right across Australia—building jobs, great for education and great for the future. We are left instead in this question time with the dwindling and pathetic spectacle of a drowning and dying man, the Leader of the Opposition in this place, who, as he struggles and grasps his way towards the winter recess—towards the spring recess; towards the recess through until budget—

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don’t even know what time of year it is.

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

He says I do not know what time of year it is. I would say that the member for Higgins knows what time of year it is—it is the time to roll the Leader of the Opposition. That is the posture on the part of those opposite. As the Leader of the Opposition feels the warm breath of the member for Higgins breathing down his neck, I say to the Leader of the Opposition that there is a core reason why he is in such political strife—that is, a complete lack of consistency all the way through. Last year he supported economic stimulus—

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order, on relevance. We know the Prime Minister can call—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Casey will resume his seat.

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

It is again interesting that the member for Higgins’ numbers man actually comes to the dispatch box. There is a core reason why the Leader of the Opposition is in near terminal trouble, and that is because he has no consistency of position. Last year he supported economic stimulus; this year he opposes it. Last year he supported emissions trading; this year he opposes it. Last year he supported the removal of Work Choices; this year he supports the continuation of Work Choices. Is it any wonder that this man’s leadership is in terminal trouble? Those opposite know exactly what I am talking about. The internal rabble which now constitutes the once great party of Menzies is there for all to see.

Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.