James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. Will the minister update the House on the impact that Building the Education Revolution is having on jobs in local communities?

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

I thank the member for Dawson for his question. I note that in the member for Dawson’s electorate there are 216 projects that are being invested in through the government’s economic stimulus. Of these, 201 are Building the Education Revolution projects in local schools. The member for Dawson knows that that is great news for his local schools and great news for local jobs. He also knows, of course, that the Liberal Party is opposed to each and every one of those projects in his electorate because the Liberals are all about talking the economy down while we build the nation up.

The member for Dawson would also know that the projects in his electorate are being joined by projects right around the country in almost 10,000 schools. This is being well received right around the country. The endorsements for this program have been flooding in. To take just one example in the member for Grey’s electorate, a primary school on the Yorke Peninsula, where Nick Goodge says:

This is seriously once-in-a-lifetime stuff. It’s a really exciting prospect for a little school.

This is an endorsement about how important this is for local schools. But of course this is also important for local jobs. The Leader of the Opposition has been known to say that Building the Education Revolution is a poor quality spend and that it will not support any jobs. Well, Australians in local communities know the truth and the truth is Building the Education Revolution is there supporting local jobs. To take one example, in the Australian on 8 May there was a report about the impact Building the Education Revolution was having on architectural services. It says:

Within a week of the federal Government’s announcement of a $14.7 billion schools upgrade program, Law Architects had 10 new projects on its books, worth $20 million.

Not in [their] lifetime had the economy been so bad—and business quite so good.

The article goes on to quote Ms Law, of the business, who says:

When the announcement came out, we were leaping for joy, and when the phones kept ringing we kept leaping …

We are flat out. We haven’t been this busy for many years …

Another firm, which specialises in building and architecture for education facilities, is in the process of hiring up to 12 architects in order to deal with the economic stimulus work. Given the National Party has been left in charge of the House today, we might note that in the member for Riverina’s electorate her local newspapers are noting that the Building the Education Revolution program is supporting local jobs. One of her local newspapers reports that Laing O’Rourke will manage the overall project and its time frames and has been inundated with applications from the local department of commerce, accredited builders, tradespeople and small businesses with school experience who want to play a role in the program. He is going to base teams in the local area in order to back this program.

Then we have the endorsement from the contractor responsible for overseeing the maintenance at a school called Alexandria Park Community School. The head of that contractor says that ‘there is little doubt that several of those small and medium-sized businesses would not have survived the global financial crisis without benefiting from government infrastructure contracts’. So the evidence is clear from people in local communities who are in touch with what is happening in their communities. On the other side of this House, all we see is continued opportunism. Depending on the moment, they will blurt out whatever comes into their mind next. In terms of blurting out whatever comes into their mind next, some days they blurt out ‘debt’ and ‘deficit’. Some days they blurt out that they proudly voted no. Some days the member for Gilmore and others are going thumbs up for local projects. Some days the member for Wentworth is trying to get himself into the local photograph. People obviously notice this cheap opportunism and these inconsistencies. The members opposite, in their embarrassment and shame because they didn’t stand up for jobs in their local communities, are yelling out, but the Australian community knows the truth. This side of the House stands for Building the Education Revolution; this side of the House stands for supporting local jobs; this side of the House stands for building the infrastructure we need for tomorrow. Those opposite stand for talking the economy down and the sort of carping we’ve just seen, Mr Speaker.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his own budget papers and particularly Budget Paper No. 1, 10-6, the table relating to the underlying cash balance. I note that since 1970 on only three occasions has the government delivered a surplus of two per cent or more: 1970-71, some time ago obviously, and two per cent in 2000. Does the Treasurer seriously believe that Australians will believe him when he says that to pay off the Rudd government debt this government will deliver eight years straight of two per cent surpluses?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The very first point that needs to be made is that I do not accept necessarily the premise of the question. I do not accept the assertions about the levels of surplus whatsoever. I do not accept them at all. What I do know—and this is something the previous government did not do—is that we have published more information on our medium-term fiscal strategy than any government prior to now. We have done that for a very serious purpose. We are in the middle of a once-in-75-years event, which has had a dramatic impact on this country.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, on relevance: I would ask the Treasurer to answer a simple question about his Prime Minister’s own numbers.

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

The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Treasurer will respond to the question.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am responding to the question, Mr Speaker, because what has occurred in this budget year is that taxation collections have dramatically fallen, by $210 billion over the forward estimates. There has been a dramatic collapse in taxation revenues, and the responsible course of action for a government in those circumstances is to borrow to support the economy—to support jobs and to support small business. That is precisely what we are doing. The responsible course of action in the circumstances is to chart a course back to surplus, to bring the budget back to surplus as soon as we possibly can—in 2015-16—and to pay down those borrowings. That is the course that we have set out in the budget papers.

In addition to that, we have put in place some tight fiscal rules. We have said—we said this in UEFO; we said it in February of this year but it was not the subject of any questioning in this House at that time—that there would be a two per cent, real, cap on spending. We said that because we have been prepared to take the courageous and decisive steps to support employment in our economy, to support business, and we have had the support of the business community in doing that. They recognise how important it is to borrow to build infrastructure—the jobs for today and the jobs for tomorrow. They do understand the importance of investing in our educational facilities and the need to borrow to do that to bring a lasting benefit to our nation and our children. They all understand that. The only people in the country who do not understand it are those opposite. We do have the support of the business community and we have the support of most responsible economists because they all understand that when revenues collapse governments borrow to support their economy. That is precisely what we are doing.

The levels of net debt here are low by world standards—very, very low by world standards. We can afford to support our people and we are doing that and we are proud of it. But we also understand our responsibility to pay down those borrowings. We understand that totally, which is why the budget papers contain so much information on our medium-term fiscal strategy. Our strategy is very simple—to bring the budget back to surplus in 2015-16 and reduce the levels of net debt to 3.7 per cent of GDP by 2019-20. That is a reasonable thing to do. It is a responsible course of action and the only irresponsible course of action is the one being taken by those opposite in this House today.