Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to respond to the type of nay-saying from those opposite with which we have become sadly all too familiar. However, when this government’s $42 billion Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan came to the Senate in February for approval, thankfully those nay-sayers were outnumbered. Those opposite wanted us to do nothing in the face of a gathering global storm. They wanted us to wait and see, to sit on our hands and to stand back—at least until some other nation had dipped a toe in the water to test the temperature. The tune we hear from those on the other side is whistle while you shirk—one they have hummed in unison before on ratifying Kyoto and dangerous climate change; on infrastructure, including broadband and schools; and on an apology to the stolen generations. The list goes on.

The signs coming from around the world in the second half of last year were ominous. The threat to Australia’s economic prosperity was considerable. But this government chose instead to act decisively and immediately to stimulate and support, to give the economy and the jobs it fosters the backing it desperately needed while a worldwide economic downturn sped towards recession. Evidence is mounting day by day that, had we listened to Mr Turnbull and his Liberal-National coalition and done nothing, Australia would not be in this healthy condition and we would not be weathering the storm as well as we are. In fact, Treasury estimates that the government stimulus action will underwrite more than 210,000 Australian jobs. Without it we would not be the best performing advanced economy in the world. Without it we would not have had the welcome and remarkable news of Australia having recorded positive growth in the June quarter to the tune of 0.6 per cent. Household consumption and spending grew by 0.8 per cent in the June quarter on the back of the government’s cash stimulus payments. This increase in spending contributed a crucial 0.5 per cent of a percentage point to Australia’s quarterly GDP growth. We can rightly be confident in our nation’s future, even though our economy is not yet in the clear and unemployment will still rise.

The Building the Education Revolution program, to which Senator Parry refers in his matter of public importance, is a critical element of the infrastructure charged $42 billion Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan. The funding from this plan is being shared by all schools—by government schools, Catholic schools and independent schools across all states and territories. When those opposite voted against the Rudd government’s economic stimulus measures they voted against improvements at every primary school in the country—against new classrooms, gyms and multipurpose halls. They voted against young children and high school students receiving new libraries, new gymnasiums and new school halls. They voted against science and language centres for our secondary schools.

I have been out to many schools. I have visited numerous schools in South Australia and every school has welcomed the Building the Education Revolution centres—the classrooms, the libraries, the school halls and the gymnasiums. The parent bodies have welcomed them as well. Those opposite voted against the National School Pride program, which provided funding for minor capital works and refurbishment projects at schools. In doing so, those opposite voted against investment in education. It did not come hard; it is something that they find easy. We know that. They were in government for 11 years and in that time education was underfunded. It is consistent with their record. In doing so, we also know that those opposite voted against jobs, against the ongoing viability of small businesses and against families. They voted against schools, the students in those schools, the school communities, the parents and the jobs that are being generated by these buildings. They voted against small businesses and they voted against families. They lost that vote, and thank goodness they did for the sake of our nation, our economy, our communities, our students, our young people and our jobs.

Of course, those opposite do not want to know about the good things to come from the government’s economic stimulus measures. That was evident today. They do not want to hear about the jobs created and the jobs saved, the facilities improved and the lives enhanced. They would prefer that we stop the investment, stop the building of infrastructure, stop the enhancing of communities and stop the creation and support of jobs.

It beggars belief that those opposite would only want to speak about the cost of what they are calling political advertising in the form of signage at schools that are benefiting from the Building the Education Revolution. Coming from the party of Work Choices and the Regional Partnerships Program, that really is a bit rich. In fact, the whole thing seems a little like sour grapes. I am advised that under the Howard government’s Roads to Recovery Program, around 70,000 recognition signs were put up to mark areas benefiting from this funding. These signs had to remain on display for a minimum of one year after the completion of the project. I will read directly from the Roads to Recovery requirements that one of the councils was given. It said:

A funding recipient must ensure that all signs erected as required by these Conditions remain in place for the duration of the project to which they relate and for a minimum period of one year commencing on the day on which the project is completed.

I am also told that approximately 6,000 recognition signs were erected for black spot projects. Also, the guidelines for the Investing in Our Schools Program—another Howard government initiative—required the display of plaques. Those guidelines state that schools will be required to affix a plaque, to be supplied by the Commonwealth, to all completed projects, where appropriate. ‘Where appropriate’ is interesting. I will get to that point. The guidelines then state that this includes, but is not limited to, new buildings, playground equipment, shade structures, new classrooms, landscape beautification et cetera. The size of the plaque should be commensurate with the size of the project structure to which it is to be affixed. Did this mean that schools that had five or six little projects—because there were a lot of little projects; we are not talking about big money with regards to some of these projects—would get one plaque? No, some schools had five or six plaques.

Our plaque requirements for the Primary Schools for the 21st Century and the science and language centre projects are for these projects only. They are not for the National School Pride projects. The Rudd government’s guidelines are absolutely standard requirements. The only difference between the current guidelines and the guidelines under Investing in Our Schools is that, under the earlier program, schools, as we already know, were required to fund the plaques themselves. I will quote from the Investing in Our Schools Program guidelines for state schools in 2007:

Costs for meeting recognition requirements should be included in the funding application.

As to the accusation from those opposite about money wasting on so-called political advertising I would remind the chamber that budget figures show that in 2007 the Howard government spent—are you ready for it?—$120 million advertising and trying to explain its draconian Work Choices laws. Those same laws, I am very pleased to say, are now dead and buried.

Not only have those opposite carped and complained about the government’s absolutely necessary and highly successful stimulus packages by attacking spending and signage but they have also accused the government of favouring Labor-friendly electorates. This is a bit rich coming from the coalition, which, while in government, oversaw the embarrassing program that has now come to be known as the ‘regional rorts program’. The audit report in November 2007 into this affair probably made the point well enough for me to establish the point again here today. Its analysis revealed:

Ministers were more likely to approve funding for ‘not recommended’ projects that had been submitted by applicants in electorates held by the Liberal and National parties …

This was shameless pork-barelling at its most blantant.

Australia has moved on from those days, thankfully. We are focused on improving the lives of Australians by improving our health and education systems, and by addressing climate change and the lack of infrastructure investment over the past decade.

The job of the economic stimulus is far from finished. Pulling the rug out from under our recovery now would slash the public and business confidence that has been such a crucial part of our stability. This would threaten small businesses, tradespeople, communities and families. It would impact significantly on our school communities; it would impact significantly on our students in schools. The suggestion is that we do not go ahead with building the libraries, the school halls, the gymnasiums, the language centres and the science centres. That is what those opposite are suggesting. We know that, in addition to threatening small businesses, tradespeople and communities and families, added up this would lead to higher unemployment. It would leave businesses in the lurch. We have chartered a responsible course for recovery and the return of the budget to surplus. We believe that now is the time to stand firm in this commitment and stay the course that we know is the right one.

Today in question time, and in some of their comments, those opposite referred to the Australian Electoral Commission and the signs out in front of school buildings. The Australian Electoral Commission media release dated 7 September states:

The AEC is also of the view that there is no current breach of paragraph 340(1)(e) of the Electoral Act in relation to election signs appearing within “6 metres of the entrance to a polling booth”. This is because the prohibition only applies on the actual day of polling in a federal election and that placing the signs on school fences does not result in those signs being within 6 metres of the entrance to a polling booth.

           …         …         …

The AEC considers that the measures announced by the Special Minister of State will address the issues raised about the signs and remove the risk of non-compliance with the Electoral Act.