Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

I take the opportunity on behalf of the opposition to wish Senator Ian Campbell all the best in his future endeavours. I note with great interest his acknowledgement of Labor’s economic reform and the importance of climate change and also his wistful, ideological nostalgia for the VSU, which of course we opposed but which we know is very dear to Senator Campbell’s heart. But good luck in the future, Senator Campbell, and all the best to you and your family.

My role here is to take note of answers to questions in question time today on matters pertaining to the budget. The key point I want to make, like many of my colleagues, is that this is not a budget designed for the long term, no matter what the government try to dress it up as. The facts are that the Howard government have for 10 long years squandered the positive economic circumstances that we found ourselves in, in particular the resources boom and the windfall arising from it.

I want to pick up the point that Senator O’Brien was making about the use of Senator Johnston’s term ‘largesse’. I think the implication of the use of that word is quite profound. In other words, the Howard government think they are doing people a favour. How condescending, and how exposing of the hubris and arrogance that now pervades the Howard government, that they can use such terms. It is quite offensive, and I think it definitively shows that there is a shallow commitment, if there is any commitment at all, to the welfare and wellbeing of Australians, particularly those who provide caring roles and those most in need in our society.

For Labor’s part, we have been very focused on the issues of the future, the things that will shape our country now and from this time. They are the issues of education. It is about the infrastructure that makes our future possible, including broadband and the sorts of physical and social infrastructure that will underpin our society and economy. On education, Labor has always been committed to building an education system that not only services our current needs but provides for opportunities for growth for all our young people and adults embarking on courses of lifelong learning, renewing their skills or changing their careers later in life. Mr Rudd’s policy of an education revolution has really resonated with Australians because people understand two things: that investment in education is necessary to make the most of our most valuable and renewable resource—that is, people—and that our education system has been not just neglected but hampered and damaged by the Howard government over the last 10 years.

These two things, both clearly understood by Australians, mean that any shallow attempt by this government to rid themselves of the reputation of the education underminers will be met with cynicism and disbelief, no matter how they try to dress it up in this budget. People are just sick of being manipulated, and they will not be fooled again.

The bottom line is that the Howard government does not have an eye for the future. It has only blinkered vision that sees only political problems to be resolved. As the alternative government, Labor takes its responsibility far more seriously than that and always will. It is just not good enough for Mr Costello to front up with a university endowment fund and think that the government will be forgiven for a decade of neglect. The fact is that the Treasurer is now smirking in the spotlight of an answer to a problem of his own making. It is not even the right answer; it is a headline in place of an answer. Our kids deserve better. They are the future, and their potential is in the hands of a government that cares more about short-term political power. Now, with HECS caps off, it looks like the Howard government has re-established universities as institutions primarily for those of wealth and privilege.

We know this because we have looked at some of the numbers that show the increases in HECS will pull some $200 million from people in the future. Further proof is that we are at the bottom of the OECD rankings for national investment in education of four-year-olds—a crucial development year. All of the research highlights this fact, yet this government has done nothing to make an investment there. In contrast, Labor has the policy to improve this situation. Further proof is the shrinking proportion of GDP that is spent on universities. (Time expired)