Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I said when I started, this package is about three things. It is about jobs, jobs and jobs. It is about, for the first time in probably three decades, making a massive investment in our schools and school communities. You need to think about what that really means. If the reactions that I have got from my electorate, from my school principals, from my P&F presidents and from the school communities are anything like the reactions that opposition members are getting from theirs, then I fear for them. My school principals and school communities are overjoyed by the package that we have presented to them—the investment in schools. We think it is a good package. We think it is actually worth spending money on schools to better educate our children. We do not think it is a cost; we think it is an investment: an investment in people’s future.

This mob voted against it. They voted against schools. They voted against their own kids’ futures and education. This is the first time in over 30 years that we have had some serious money spent on schools, schools that have been trying to inject some pride and some standards and to build facilities—replace the demountable classrooms and provide real 21st-century facilities—to give our kids a better shot. And what did those guys opposite do? They voted against it. They voted against money for their own schools. Did they do that because they thought that was the best strategy? No. They did it out of pride, self-interest, opportunism. There is no way that anyone could go out to a school and stand before a school community and say, ‘I don’t want you to get $3 million for a brand new library, because your kids don’t deserve a library.’ Opposition members are standing up and saying, ‘Your kids don’t deserve a school hall; they can sit out in the elements in winter and summer.’

How can I prove that the opposition members are doing that? Because they voted against funding for schools. That I could not comprehend. Even if you did not like the whole package, on that alone you would have to say: what were the opposition members thinking? I have got an answer as to what they were thinking. They were thinking about themselves—not about the economy, not about the national interest, not about anybody else: opposition for opposition’s sake.

We have invested in infrastructure—and it makes me really proud, as a government member—in a way I did not even contemplate was possible. I wanted to deliver a lot to my community and to the broader community out of us winning government. I wanted to build roads because roads had not been built for over a decade—in some cases, for nearly 15 years, spanning two governments. But there was no will and no commitment from the former government after 12 years in office in the best economic times globally, in the best economic times this country has seen for a long time—the resources boom, rivers of gold that used to flow into Canberra, when money used to rain from the sky, when unexpected windfall gains of $50 billion to the bottom line in the economy meant you could do anything you wanted in government. Everything you spent—tax cuts and everything else—was completely offset by windfalls of $50 billion at a time. Something like $400 billion of unexpected windfall was delivered to government through tax revenues, the rivers of gold which flowed in because of a booming economy.

What did they do with the unbelievable opportunity? For the most part they squandered it. They just threw it away. They had a great party. I can remember them smiling from ear to ear. They were never going to lose government. Nobody was clever enough to figure out that there was no money going back into communities, that schools had not seen a red dollar for more than a decade. ‘Let’s just blame the states for everything and let’s forget that the states rely on federal funding to deliver programs and education in schools. So let’s disregard all of that and concentrate on blaming other people. We’ll have a great big party.’ When the party was over, they woke up with that huge headache and a big mess to clean up, looked around and said, ‘Who made the mess?’

I ask opposition members: who made the mess? I am not saying that the opposition and then Howard government created the financial crisis. That would be ridiculous, even though that is what they are trying to imply in terms of this government’s performance since coming to office. Nobody is being fooled by that. Nobody believes that for a minute. Even they do not believe it. They are completely disingenuous.

In the last few days, we have really seen what the opposition is all about. We have seen the former shadow Treasurer being discounted away and ejected out of the position. It is too complex, too difficult. It is a very difficult job. You would think that the member for North Sydney, Joe Hockey, would have been the second choice, but he was not; he was third choice, so two scalps have been claimed. The second choice was Peter Costello, but he is too proud, too self-interested to do a job for the country. Maybe the country does deserve to have him there. If he is as good as he says he is, why is he not there serving his country, serving the people? If he is the best person on the opposition benches, why is he not there? I have already answered that: self-interest. He is not going to lower himself to the role of shadow Treasurer when he believes he ought to be the leader. I do not have to give him any advice because his own party has already done that.

The reality is that Australia and the world faces one of the greatest crises we have probably ever faced, certainly in many generations. We have a couple of choices to make as members of parliament about how we deal with the situation. Either you can completely oppose for the sake of opposing all the measures—the stimulus packages, the funding we are providing to stimulate job creation and keep people spending, the banking guarantee to ensure that our banking system does not collapse and that there is not a run on banks, all of those integral parts in making sure our economy survives—or you can just oppose about leadership, about who gets which spoils of defeat, about rank opportunism. That to me is not right and is not what an opposition should be about. (Time expired)

See this speech in context