Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate notes:

(a)

the Government’s mismanagement of major programs, including the Building the Education Revolution and the Home Insulation Program and other major government initiatives;

(b)

the incredible waste that has resulted from these mismanaged programs; and

(c)

the impact that the waste has had on Australian states.

There is so much evidence now before the Australian public, it beggars belief. Labor made many promises in the lead-up to the 2007 election and many after coming into power. They have promised, but they have not delivered. And, worse still, what they have delivered has been done so badly and so poorly. You see, it is so easy to make promises, but the proper delivery of major projects requires sound financial management, proper planning and resourcing. It is so much more than just big ideas. We saw that under the Howard government. Its fiscal management was great, it paid off Labor’s debt—it took over 10 years to do that—and it left this country and this government with a surplus. But what has the Rudd government done? The waste and mismanagement has been supreme.

Before getting into some of the details, I would just like to note a few examples of the promises that the government made prior to the election. They wanted to bring petrol prices down. They wanted to bring grocery prices down. Well, they have failed. They wanted this takeover of public hospitals. There is a huge failure there, a big question mark. They said they wanted the budget to remain in surplus and there would be no reckless spending. That has been an absolute failure. Laptop computers in schools for years nine to 12—it just has not happened. The students are still waiting. What about the 36 GP superclinics? We had the AMA dinner a few nights ago, and the Prime Minister stood up there saying he has delivered on health. Well, he has not delivered on the GP superclinics. I think we have two that are operating. What about the 260 childcare centres that would be operating around Australia in each of the communities that need them? That has not happened either. They promised no means testing of private hospitals. Well, they have broken their promise. I am so proud of the coalition. I am proud of the members in this Senate who said, ‘No, don’t break your promise!’ We said no to the breaking of that promise because Labor have a pathological hatred of private hospitals and anything private.

With regard to the Building the Education Revolution and the Home Insulation Program—the pink batts fiasco, which is what it is—I want to focus in particular on Labor’s environment credibility. The fact is it is in tatters. They came to government and they came to power claiming to have all of the answers on climate change and the environment, but two years later they have not delivered. In fact, they have delivered nothing but a string of broken promises. The pink batts Home Insulation Program has gone from bad to worse. It seems to be getting worse every day. We have a tragic situation where four young Australians have died, and their deaths are linked to the government’s pink batts Home Insulation Program. You have the 105 house fires. These are the house fires that we know of, but the number keeps increasing. It was 93 a week or so ago, and 82 a few weeks before that, but the question is: how many more houses are at risk? There were about 1,000 electrified roofs a month or so ago; now it is up to 1,500 electrified roofs and 240,000 dodgy installations.

The day before yesterday there was the answer to a question on notice from me for the Senate committee of inquiry into this matter, ably chaired by Senator Mary Jo Fisher. What was the answer to the question: how many insulation batts were from overseas? We discovered that, out of the 1.1 million homes that have so-called ‘benefited’ under this program, 40 per cent have batts from overseas and of that number one-fifth, or 20 per cent, were from China—that is, we are talking about over 60,000 Australian homes. We are talking about Australian families who have dodgy or noncompliant insulation in their homes. They do not know today whether they are safe; they do not know if their insulation is complying with the Australian standards.

We had Minister Wong in here yesterday saying that the standards are mandatory. She can say whatever she wants—there are 60,000 Australian families today who know, as a result of that answer to a question on notice that came through yesterday, that their insulation is either dodgy, underperforming or non-compliant and that those batts come from overseas, specifically China. That is a great shame. Those batts failed to meet manufacturers’ claims of thermal efficiency and were labelled incorrectly.

What is staggering new information about the 1.1 million homes is that 40 per cent of the insulation came from overseas. This was part of the government’s stimulus package: it was designed to stimulate the Australian economy, to stimulate jobs in Australia. We had Minister Arbib going on about the importance of jobs, jobs, jobs. Where were those jobs created? We know in relation to insulation that 40 per cent of them have been overseas: China, USA, Thailand and Malaysia. That was in that answer, which was tabled yesterday, to a question on notice from me via that Senate committee. This is tragic.

Of course, this is consistent with what the government did with respect to the tax bonus and the money that went overseas. Over $40 million went, very sadly, to dead Australians, to people living overseas and to criminals in prison. That is where they sent that Australian taxpayers’ money. You could not get a worse example of waste and mismanagement. So the government seem to be consistently poorly managing our economy and poorly managing these important government programs. We know that Mr Garrett got the Home Insulation Program wrong. He reduced the $1,600 rebate to $1,200 and he is going to reduce it still in the months ahead. And of course $200 million has just gone up in smoke as a result of that ill-conceived decision. Now we have a rescue package, but we know that the 60,000 homes I referred to are in addition to the 240,000 homes with dodgy insulation and the 1,500 electrified roofs.

I want to read to the Senate of the concerns out there in the local community with respect to families, pensioners—older Australians—and what they have to say. This is from an article by Neil Mitchell in the Herald Sun today. It says:

As each ceiling does catch fire it becomes more obvious that Rudd and his Government have no clue what pain and fear they have created in the community and how many sensible, normally independent people are confused and scared.

The article refers to Frances, who is 82 years old and ‘lives in fear in Albert Park’ in Melbourne:

Frances had insulation installed by what sounds to have been dodgy operators on January 16. They left no details of what they had done and promised to send paperwork that has never arrived.

She doesn’t know if it’s dangerous but as she hears about the fires she becomes more nervous, and rightly so.

Asked to help Frances, the nice lady at Kevin Rudd’s hotline said there was nothing that could be done. A “quality audit” was under way, she said, but those houses were already selected—

and hers was not one of them. The article goes on to talk about the scenario for Frances. She is feeling very confused and concerned. The article says:

So let’s absorb this. An elderly pensioner has had possibly dodgy insulation installed because of an ill-conceived, badly administered piece of Government grandstanding and now lives in fear.

How many Australians are in a position like Frances’? Can the government say how many? Can the government advise this Senate and the Australian people? Can they come clean and express their views? What are they doing about it? They say they are auditing 15 per cent. Frankly, that is not good enough. It seems to me and to others that there needs to be a full, proper and comprehensive audit so that the fear and anxiety can be removed. There are people, including on the other side, who are happy to stand up and spout the importance of older Australians and pensioners. Well, come on! Take a good look at yourself and think about people who are concerned and anxious.

The Prime Minister and Mr Combet, in their responses, spout along the following lines:

… prior to 2009 there were also a proportion of homes which had safety-related issues arising from insulation.

       …         …         …

Melbourne’s fire brigade reports that in the six months to June last year there were seven fires related to insulation. Then this dodgy scheme was introduced and in the next six months the number of insulation-related fires jumped to 31.

Seven to 31 in that space of time! So they cannot just use the excuse, ‘Oh, there is always the odd fire in a roof.’ Come on! You have a fourfold increase in the number of fires in roofs. It is not good enough. People are living in fear and the government is not doing anything about it. I feel very upset and concerned for and on behalf of those Australians who have had enough. They want security; they want confidence in their own homes. They want to be able to walk through that front door, into the kitchen, and sit comfortably there and say, ‘We feel confident. We love our home; we are safe here.’ But that is not happening, as a result of the government’s mismanagement and maladministration of the Home Insulation Program. It is a great shame.

We heard the news just a few days ago about speculation as to whether insurance would cover people’s homes—would they be able to get insurance cover? If they paid the premium, as they had previously done, or if it is a new insurance policy, would the insurance company cover those homes? That was speculated about as well. I do not know the details about that. We have to get to the bottom of it. I would like to know. The Electrical Contractors Association estimates that the audit, if it was done properly and the rectification measures were undertaken, would cost some $450 million. Goodness me! It is a $2.45 billion program, and that is the amount of money that is required to fix it.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Waste, waste, waste.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The waste, waste, waste is something shocking, as Senator Fisher has indicated. And it goes from bad to worse, because if you add up all the costs we are talking about up to $1 billion in waste as a result of the government’s bungling and mismanagement of the Home Insulation Program. The government come in here and cannot say exactly how long it will take until the audit is complete, and they are only talking about the 15 per cent. They cannot say how much it will cost. Why won’t they? They have had weeks and weeks to work this out. It does not take that long. The government’s mismanagement and maladministration of this program is a disgrace, and they should hang their heads in shame. Something I have learnt in just the past 24 hours is that numerous people have been injured. Four Australians, tragically, have been killed as a result of their link to the Home Insulation Program, but how many Australians have been injured? I do not know the answer to that, and I would like to get to the bottom of it. We have a Senate committee hearing next week, and we will get to the bottom of it.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They won’t know.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will. Be assured: we will get to the bottom of this, whatever it takes, for and on behalf of the Australian people and Australian families. It is not good enough. In light of the time, I need to move on and refer to the Building the Education Revolution, as they call it. Do you know what I call it? I call it a waste revolution.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley interjecting—

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Furner interjecting—

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is what it is all about. We have heard a lot of interjections from Senator Polley and others. The fact is it is not good enough. What have we heard about the waste?

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley interjecting—

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley, I will take that interjection. The unions support the Labor Party. What about the New South Wales Teachers Federation? What do they say about the importance of looking into the waste and mismanagement of this program? They say that it is shocking throughout New South Wales. They want the Auditor-General in New South Wales—they have written to the Auditor-General in New South Wales—to conduct an inquiry to see if they can get to the bottom of it and say, ‘It’s not good enough.’ It is in writing. In fact, Ray Hadley had an excellent program on 2GB. I know Senator Heffernan was referring to this yesterday. I spoke to him today. He was telling us about a fence that needed to be fixed next to a school, and it was on Ray Hadley’s program this morning. It was a $1,000 project, and they said, ‘No, we can’t do it.’ The farmer wanted to fix the fence for $1,000 or thereabouts, or the farmer’s neighbour did, and the cost was $76,000. Let us get to the bottom of that: is it right or not? It was on Ray Hadley’s show this morning. Talk to Ray, and we will check it out. We will see what comes up on 2GB.

This is the sort of example of waste and mismanagement that you can see. The front page of the Australian today had a beauty: ‘School “Building the Education Revolution” costs double quoted price’. Double the quoted price! Senator Polley and her colleagues on the other side should understand that this is a waste revolution. It is affecting Australian families. You are spending Australia into debt, and that is the problem. The waste and mismanagement is something shocking. It has gone from bad to worse.

In the couple of minutes that are available I want to refer to one of the worst examples of waste and mismanagement. It is not GROCERYchoice—that is bad enough, with over $8 million wasted. It is not the school stimulus debacle, with the $1.7 billion blow-out. Guess what—it is not in the laptops in schools, with the $800 million blow-out, where the promises have been breached and broken and kids in grades 9 to 12 have not received the laptops that they were promised prior to the election. It is not the Northern Territory housing program, under which $45 million was spent and not one house built. It is not the tax bonus waste, whereby $40 million went to dead people and to Australians living overseas. It is not the stimulus advertising, whereby $50 million in the current budget was spent on advertising the government program. It is not the broadband tender and the associated waste under that program. With the National Broadband Network there is that $30 million that was wasted as a result of the totally inappropriate behaviour by Senator Conroy, as the manager of that program. It goes on and on. It is not the climate change advertising—$10 million was wasted on that. It is not the 2020 Summit—$2 million was wasted on that. With all those recommendations they have come up with only nine, and we have not yet seen what the funding for those will be. Watch this space! We will be watching for a while to get outcomes from the 2020 Summit.

I will conclude on this promise relating to consultancies: this is an overarching, whole-of-government approach. This is typical Labor. In funding for consultancies, they have now hit the jackpot. They have hit $1 billion since they came into government.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s incredible.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator Macdonald: $1 billion. It is now close to $1.1 billion. We know that is a lot of money. That is a jackpot. It is big money. We are not talking about hundreds of millions; we are talking about nearly $1.1 billion. But the amazing thing is that, prior to the election, the government promised to cut consultancies by $400 million. They wanted to cut it by $400 million—$100 million a year over four years. They promised to cut spending on consultancies, but it has gone up and it is now well over $1 billion. That is a whole-of-government approach. This government have no idea of how to manage the economy or how to manage the government. That waste is going to be paid for by Australian families and their kids for years and years to come, and that is shameful behaviour by the government. They should know better. They should hang their heads in shame and apologise to the Australian people and come clean. The Australian people, Australian families, say, ‘Enough is enough; this government should get it right.’

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say at the outset that I think that this motion is a waste of the Senate’s time. Nevertheless, I will respond to the motion that has been proposed, because it gives me the opportunity to outline some of the many successes of the government’s programs. It also gives me the opportunity to rebut some of the unsubstantiated claims made in the motion and repeated ad nauseam by Senator Barnett. Here in this motion we had the usual scaremongering and misrepresentations and being loose with the truth that we have come to expect from the opposition, which continues to waste the Senate’s time with these ridiculous motions. They make claims about the Building the Education Revolution program that do not stack up. Whenever they look beyond the front page of the Australian, which seems to be their major research tool, they discover that the claims that they make are not substantiated. Time and time again at Senate estimates these ridiculous claims that they make are found to be lacking in truth and not borne out by the facts. I am sure that the latest story in the Australian will suffer the same fate. Nevertheless, we will have that lazy opposition keep using the Australian as their primary source of information in an attempt to beat the government around with what turns out to be a wet lettuce.

The opposition in this motion talks about waste and mismanagement. Perhaps the Australian public would like to consider whether it is a waster of taxpayers’ money to continue to pay the senators opposite, who continue to bang on ad nauseam about the government’s extremely successful economic stimulus plan and continue to mismanage their responsibility as an opposition by just opposing everything that comes before the chamber. They oppose everything that comes before the chamber because they have no plans, no policy, no vision and no agreement between themselves about the way forward—nothing that they can put to the Australian people about what they would do as an alternative government.

I have made an error there. They have got one thing in their bag: a great big tax proposed by the opposition leader. It is a three billion dollar tax on business to pay for a paid parental leave scheme that is intended to make Mr Abbott more appealing to women voters. All it has done, though, is alert women voters to the fact that Mr Abbott is behaving in his usual, cynical, backflipping way in proposing a scheme for paid parental leave which he is on the record as firmly opposing. All his scheme has done is infuriate business, which the opposition claims to represent.

And it has garnered the amusing disdain of Mr Peter Costello, who I recall as Australia’s longest Treasurer—the longest serving Treasurer who never got to be Prime Minister. This is an opposition that stands up in here and talks about waste and mismanagement and how it is opposed to higher taxes. What does Mr Costello say about Mr Abbott’s plan? He says: ‘I have been to a lot of Liberal Party meetings in my life and I can honestly say I have never heard a speech in favour of higher tax.’ There you go. It is always disturbing for me to have to quote Mr Costello, but it was interesting to read that speech from him to Mr Abbott’s proposal. He is not fooled by it and we know that the people of Australia will not be fooled by it either.

Getting back to the government’s programs, which are the subject of this motion, you only need to scratch the surface of the Rudd Labor government’s initiatives to see how successful they have been. I remind you that we are talking about the initiatives that saved Australia from falling into recession. To suggest that they have been mismanaged is farcical. But, as I mentioned before, we expect nothing more from those on the other side, who seem to enjoy wasting the Senate’s time and take a reckless approach to the future of our nation by blocking crucial legislation from passing the Senate chamber.

I would like to ask senators opposite who are speaking to this motion: exactly what schools does the opposition want to not participate in the Building the Education Revolution program? Which ones out of the nearly 10,000 schools in Australia does it want to not have libraries, community halls, new infrastructure or new computers? I think that I have asked this question before. Senators on this side keep asking that question. We never get an answer from the other side. All we keep getting are pictures of coalition senators turning up at the openings of this school infrastructure with smiley faces, hoping that they can claim some of the credit.

The Building the Education Revolution program was part of the Rudd Labor government’s swift, smart and effective response to the global financial crisis. The Nation Building and Jobs Plan and the economic stimulus packages implemented across the country boosted the employment rate and saved hundreds of thousands of Australians from unemployment. It saved their families from the terrible situation of having the breadwinner unemployed and it saved the nation from the worst of the economic downturn that affected the whole of the world. The success of the stimulus in boosting the confidence of Australian consumers and businesses during the worst global recession in 75 years helped set Australia apart from other advanced economies and helped us avoid recession. Let us not forget that those on the other side voted against the package. They voted not to invest in our schools and infrastructure. They were completely out of step with the rest of the responsible community, who understood that that action by the Rudd Labor government was needed.

Since the stimulus package was implemented the government has watched with great interest the response of economists and commentators. I note, and it is worth putting on the record, that the Chief Economist of the Commonwealth Bank, Mr Michael Blythe, has said the:

... aggressive policy action—fiscal and monetary—worked. And it worked quickly.

Mr Blythe also said:

Targeting parts of our economy where there was some genuine demand and an immediate ability to spend was very smart.

And:

The limited rise in unemployment relative to expectations proved to be a positive “shock”, driving a rapid recovery in consumer confidence and the economy more broadly.

That was from the Commonwealth Bank’s Chief Economist. Michael Blythe is not the only economist to approve of the nation-building stimulus package. Economist James McIntyre, also of the Commonwealth Bank, said with regard to the construction industry:

The public sector construction component of the stimulus package was designed to kick in with a lag as private sector construction activity fell away in response to the confidence shock of the global financial crisis. The timing and effectiveness of that design is evident in the QIV 2009 construction work done figures.

Another economist, Craig James of Commsec, said:

Had it not been for the public sector, construction activity would now be more than 10 per cent down on a year ago, stalling the momentum for the broader economy.

A report put out by the OECD in mid-February this year made it clear that the fiscal and monetary stimulus in Australia has in no small part shielded businesses and citizens from the initial, damaging impacts of the global recession. That report said:

Although the global recession has not spared Australia, its impact appears to have been less severe than in most other OECD countries.

What a glowing report for the Rudd Labor government, which acted decisively and effectively to address the global financial crisis. It makes a mockery of the bleatings from those opposite about the federal government’s economic stimulus package and its various components.

We know full well that the government did the right thing with these programs and that Australians are better off as a result of it. But the opposition are blinded to the facts. They did not want the nation-building economic stimulus at all and they voted against it. They wanted to send Australians into unemployment. They wanted to deny our schools, our health sector and the people of Australia the infrastructure projects that have been rolling out across the country—not just in city areas either. We have helped many regional and rural communities across the country with their schools, infrastructure and, in particular, roads and rail transport. We developed our economic stimulus package with a view to the future. We knew that we could not secure the economic future of the country without strong infrastructure projects. They were desperately needed because of the neglect of the coalition during its 12 long years in office.

Last night I spoke in the adjournment debate about the growth and the successes in South Australia as a result of the ongoing partnership between the Rann Labor government there and the Rudd government. I was very pleased to be able to outline how that partnership has contributed to the economic security and wellbeing of South Australia and to its very welcome, very low unemployment figures. South Australia is like all states and territories across the country in benefiting from the Nation Building and Economic Stimulus Package. There are a few more projects that I would like to mention, which I was not able to last night. In particular, I would like to mention the opening of the Panax Geothermal project, near Penola on South Australia’s Limestone Coast, which received $7 million from the federal government. That will create new jobs in that region, in the south-east, and give us a head start in developing new technologies that will ensure energy security for the future. Is the opposition opposed to that kind of project as well? Are you going to tell the people of Penola that you do not want that project to go ahead? Are you going to tell the people of South Australia that you do not want investment in alternative energies?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don’t even know where Penola is!

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course, Senator Bernardi would not want investment in alternative energies, would he? That is because he is a climate change sceptic. He is one of the many over there—he is one of the troglodytes. He does not believe in this sort of stuff. He does not believe in any other type of energy; he just wants to live in his cave in the dark burning his coal, as he has done.

Another recent announcement that I was unable to talk about last night was the roll out of fibre-to-the-premises network across the entire town of Willunga—another place that South Australian senators will be very familiar with. Willunga has struggled to get access to broadband technology of a quality that will satisfy the education, household and business needs in that important and growing region of South Australia. It was a very welcome announcement and I am very pleased that the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, agreed that that regional area would benefit from the rollout of infrastructure. It is essential to the development of the region.

I would like to take the opportunity to put this on the record, if I could go back to schools for a minute. It is worth while noting the financial commitment that has been made to schools as a result of Building the Education Revolution and the economic stimulus package. I want to highlight three programs: National School Pride, which has provided funding of $102 million to 788 schools; Primary Schools for the 21st Century, which has provided $1.19 billion to 693 schools; and Science and Language Centres for 21st Century Secondary Schools, which has provided nearly $78 million to 61 schools. Those are South Australian figures. They are not small amounts of money. They are big projects. They are big important projects that South Australia needs and that the Rudd Labor government was pleased to deliver to them.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A lot of employment.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, and a lot of employment, indeed, Senator Furner. I know you are very concerned about employment and about working Australians, because before you came into this place, like many of us on this side, you supported working Australians. Who, in this chamber, did not support working Australians? Let me think—that’s right, it was those people on the other side of the chamber. What did they introduce? Something called Work Choices. What will they introduce if they ever, God forbid, get back into government? Work Choices. Why? Because the opposition leader, Mr Tony Abbott, is on the record as saying that he supports Work Choices. We all know that. He might not have much of a record as an economic administrator. I do not think Mr Abbott has ever held an economic portfolio. Heaven forbid that he has to rely on people like Senator Barnett or Senator Joyce, who has been providing him advice on financial matters. Senator Joyce, I think, had something to say about the paid parental leave package and its being a tax, but I do not have time to go further into that issue. It is just another interesting example of the kinds of divisions that we see in the coalition, which pretends that it would like to be the alternative government. Heaven help us if that ever happens!

When the Rudd Labor government announced our Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan in February of last year, our economy had contracted and was on the brink of recession. We were facing the very bleak prospect of a million Australians being out of work. As a government, we were determined to do whatever we responsibly could to protect our economy, to protect jobs, and to protect small businesses. And that is what we have done. One year on, a combination of the economic stimulus and the resilience and hard work of Australian families, workers and businesses has meant that we have avoided recession and saved the jobs of tens of thousands of Australians. Together, we have achieved stronger growth than any other advanced economy, created jobs, kept unemployment levels down and, most importantly, put in place the bones of the infrastructure for a modern, responsive economy into the future.

To those on the other side who continue to bleat that they are unimpressed with the government’s innovative and astute actions: let me remind you of the statistics. The most recent labour force figures showed unemployment increased by just 0.1 per cent in February, rising to 5.3 per cent from January’s revised rate of 5.2 per cent. The fact that Australia’s unemployment rate has a five in front of it, after what the world economy has come through in the past 18 months, is a testament to the resilience of Australian employers and employees and the way they have got behind economic stimulus.

At 5.3 per cent, Australia’s unemployment rate remains lower than that of every major advanced economy except Japan. Since the start of the global recession, countries like Canada and the UK, and the European economies, have lost millions of jobs, and 6.8 million jobs have been lost in the US. The ILO’s recent Global employment trends report found that a total of 27 million people lost their jobs in 2009. That is a frightening statistic. It is a statistic that the Rudd Labor government knew was in the offing. When we introduced our economic stimulus plan it was with a view to preventing the worst of that terrible economic downturn affecting Australia.

I would like to conclude by reiterating that it is very unfortunate the opposition uses its time with these motions, which do nothing to advance Australia. These motions simply emphasise that the opposition is without vision, without plans and without forethought. The opposition are whingers, knockers and extremists and are out of date. They refuse to contribute meaningfully in this place and refuse to pass legislation, such as the CPRS legislation, the fairer health insurance legislation and the NBN legislation. They refuse to do anything at all constructive to assist Australians, Australian families and Australian businesses into the future.

You are the ones who are wasteful. You are the ones who are mismanaging your responsibilities as an opposition. You are a disgrace, and so is this motion.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of this motion, which recognises Rudd Labor’s failings in managing major projects—failings that have caused waste. Waste from their failed management of major projects is impacting on the states.

It is clear that Rudd Labor cannot get it right. It is clear that Rudd Labor cannot keep its election promises, cannot manage major projects and cannot achieve the goals it states for its major projects. All Rudd Labor can do is waste, as a result of its major projects, and rely on some sort of so-called mateship between Rudd Labor and state Labor. Rudd Labor promised, as part of its election promises—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley interjecting—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley, will you cease shouting across the chamber.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rudd Labor promised cooperative federalism. We have seen no results of that. Most spectacular failures from so-called cooperative federalism come to mind. Look at water. There has been no national management of water, no national management of any sort of relief for the Murray-Darling Basin and no results from cooperative federalism for health reform across the country.

Rudd Labor promised Fuelwatch. Result: waste. Rudd Labor promised GROCERYchoice. Result: waste. Rudd Labor promised NBN round 1. Result: waste—18 months of time and some $30 million of taxpayers’ money wasted. Rudd Labor promised green loans. Result: waste. In fact, the result was a program that is still, in name only, Green Loans but somehow does not have any loans left to be made. Laptops in schools—another Rudd Labor promise. Result: noncompliance. So much for cooperative federalism. Another Rudd Labor promise and another Rudd Labor failure.

What can we rely on Rudd Labor to do? It is pretty clear that if they could not run NBN round 1 how could we, and why should we, rely on and trust Rudd Labor to deliver NBN round 2? If Rudd Labor could not run and manage the Home Insulation Program round 1, how should we, and why should we, rely on and trust Rudd Labor to deliver on the Home Insulation Program round 2? If Rudd Labor could not manage and deliver a genuine national agreement to manage the Murray-Darling basin in a time of drought, how should we, and why should we, rely on and trust Rudd Labor to deliver a genuine national agreement to manage the Murray-Darling basin after one of the greatest wets in the north in the past 30 years? The pressure is hardly going to be on Rudd Labor now. Rudd Labor, state Labor and Rann Labor are going to say it has rained—particularly South Australian Labor—after months and months and months of saying, ‘We cannot make it rain.’ The pressure is off; the job is done; the job is right.

How can we trust Rudd Labor to deliver? How can South Australians trust Rann Labor to deliver again when they know they cannot trust Rudd Labor, they cannot trust state Labor and they cannot trust Rann Labor? How can the Australian electorate, and in particular the South Australian electorate, be expected to trust Labor governments, federal and state, which seem to rely on mateship to achieve results? South Australian Premier, Mike Rann, crows today that he somehow enjoyed results for SA from his good friend, from his mate, Kevin Rudd, due to a 20 or so year-long friendship with the Prime Minister. If that is the best the Premier, Mike Rann, can show as a result of a 20-year-long mateship with Prime Minister Rudd, then it has delivered few results for South Australia.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Fisher, I would remind you about the title of premiers.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I go back to the motion. Prime Minister Rudd, in referring to cooperative federalism, no doubt had in mind the many forms of friendship that Australian Labor enjoys. Minister Conroy effectively gets his mate Mike Kaiser appointed to NBN Co. The friendships amongst the ranks of the Labor ‘many’ enjoy varied forms. They range from factional friendships to perhaps some ‘flirty’ friendships. It is pretty clear that Prime Minister Rudd does not have a factional friendship with Premier Keneally. Undoubtedly, he does not have a flirty friendship either. Either way, he has not delivered any results from that so-called cooperative federalism. Mateship and flirty friendships are all very well, but they do not have a place in Australian politics.

What does have a place in Australian politics is delivery of policies based not on mateship or on friendship but on merit. The Australian people and the South Australian people know that Rudd Labor and Rann Labor are based on mates, mates, mates, backs, backs, backs: ‘I’ll pat yours, you pat mine’—flirt, flirt, flirt—based on spin over substance. The Australian electorate is ready for some substance over the spin.

Look at some easy examples from the federal perspective. Look at the Home Insulation Program, look at the mismanagement of the National Broadband Network and look—much as my Labor colleagues might not like to do—at the mismanagement of the Murray-Darling basin. Round 1 of the plagued Home Insulation Program, as foretold by the independent risk assessment from Minter Ellison, was done in too much of a hurry, the program was given to a department that was ill equipped to deliver it and the scale of the task was new to the department. They are policy wonks, not program wonks.

Despite the foretelling of these risks, Rudd Labor ploughed ahead. Rudd Labor ploughed ahead announcing a program in February 2009 for implementation in July 2009. It was five months in gestation before its implementation. In that mismanaged program, there were no plans like, ‘Let us make sure we put the right insulation in the right places,’ and, ‘We install the insulation that is suited for the purpose: we make sure that in hotter climates we do not install the sorts of insulation that keep hothouses hot’—basically, makes them mini-incubators—and, ‘Let’s make sure that in colder climates we do not install insulation that stops the heat from coming in.’ No plans—so the reverse occurred.

The Senate inquiry into the Home Insulation Program heard from some independent expert witnesses who talked, for example, about the experiences of the wrong sort of insulation for the wrong places. Professor Richard Aynsley told the committee that in the tropics there is a strong preference for metal roofs, because tiled roofs cannot take much treatment from tropical cyclones. He said:

Metal roofs do very well. However, in a humid environment with a metal roof facing a sky, particularly when there are low cloud conditions, the temperature of metal roofs can fall to eight degrees below air temperature at night. This is typically at about three or four o’clock in the morning. The humidity at that time is going to be around about 80 or 90 per cent and the result of that cooling of the metal will be condensation both on the upper surface of the roof and on the inside of the roof.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley interjecting—

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listen, Labor colleagues, to the detail which you should have sought and to which you should have paid attention prior to the hasty implementation of this program. The professor went on to say:

… and so it actually rains inside these metal roofs in Townsville.

He also said:

If you have bulk insulation across the ceiling below that raining surface, you get moisture build-up in the insulation which affects its insulating properties. It will heat up dramatically during the day but it will destroy the top layers and often the lower layers of the material are still damp.

In short, he went on later to talk about moisture penetration and mould in the insulation.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley interjecting—

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well you may laugh, colleagues—Rudd Labor colleagues, if I may. You would not be laughing, I might suggest, were you a homeowner in the tropics with the wrong sort of insulation fitted to the wrong sort of house in the wrong sort of climate. And we do not know how many of those there are because Rudd Labor says that, of the million or so houses fitted with insulation under its Home Insulation Program, it is only going to inspect about a quarter, if we are lucky. We do not know when it is going to start inspecting them. We do not know who is going to inspect them and how well trained they are going to be. We do not know how long the inspections are going to take. We do not know who is going to pay for it. We do not know what is going to happen once those houses are inspected.

To go back to the mismanagement in the first place, part of the trouble is that many of our Australian mums and dads do not know if they have got insulation in their homes. They might think they have but, if they have not had a look, they might find they have not got any at all. And many of them do not know that they are supposed to have insulation in their houses when, in fact, they have not: they are supposed to have insulation in their houses because the department administering the scheme has already paid some shonk for, supposedly, installing insulation in those houses. And, by the way, there are many reputable players in the industry who actually have installed insulation and subsequently sent a bill to the department or sought the rebate in accordance with the scheme only to find they cannot be rebated because someone else has already been rebated—in other words, the shonk has got there first. How is a reputable business supposed to have known that? And how is Minister Combet going to mop up the mess? How is he going to ensure that those reputable operators who are owed money are paid their money when the shonks have already taken off with that money and vanished? And from where will the money come? What about the often well-intended workers attracted to the industry at the behest of the government, many of whom have reportedly not been paid—how are they going to have their wages paid by companies that no longer exist?

Has the government learnt from the failures and the problems that plagued the Home Insulation Program first time around? Is the government learning from the problems that Minister Combet—well-intended as he may be—is having in mopping up the mess? No. The first program was some five months in gestation, from February to July. What is happening with this program? Minister Garrett suspended the old one in February 2010 and Rudd Labor announced the new one in February 2010 to be implemented some five months later. So, a year on: same time frame, same haste. A year on: same bureaucratic shortcomings—on the say-so of the head of the rebadged department tasked with implementing the new program. Dr Martin Parkinson says that his program, his policy—I’ll get it right. It would be good if Rudd Labor would get it right. Dr Parkinson says that his department is experienced in policy, not in programs. In short, they are policy wonks, not program wonks. Once again we have a department, through no fault of its own, being tasked with a program that is potentially beyond its capacity. So: no lessons from the past, and the problems from the past are set to plague the new program in the future.

What of the goals of the Home Insulation Program? It was supposed to stimulate the economy. It was going to cost the Australian taxpayer some $2.7 billion and it now looks like it will cost that and then some by the time the mess is fixed up and the new program implemented—how is that a net stimulus to the economy? How does a program create jobs when workers were sacked at the stroke of a ministerial pen, when Minister Garrett suspended a supposedly successful program? How does a program achieve its so-called environmental aims when the wrong insulation is put in the wrong places in the wrong climates, meaning that householders have little option other than to use air conditioning when the insulation should have done the job and to use heating when the insulation should have done the job? How is it saving ‘carbon miles’ when insulation put in has to be taken out? How is it saving carbon miles when the insulation that was put in has to be taken out and disposed of somewhere, or is now not able to be put in because it is dangerous and dodgy and has to be disposed of somewhere—and, by the way, is not biodegradable? How is that a net environmental benefit? It simply is not.

Speaking of mateship, where was mateship and friendship—and the benefits thereof, supposedly—in the warnings that were apparently given from the South Australian Coordinator-General, Rod Hook, to his federal counterpart, the Commonwealth Coordinator-General, Mike Mrdak, about the dangers and the safety risks inherent in the first round of the Home Insulation Program? Mr Hook says he warned Mr Mrdak. Mr Mrdak, in evidence to the Senate committee, effectively says, ‘Well, maybe you did, maybe you didn’t, but if you did I didn’t really hear it and I certainly didn’t pass it on.’ Did South Australian minister Gail Gago use Mike Rann’s mateship with Prime Minister Rudd to make sure the message got through? No. Yes, sure, the South Australian electorate will get less from a Liberal government than a Rann Labor government! Hardly. They could hardly stand to get any less than they have got from Rann Labor.

The National Broadband Network is mismanagement supreme: $43 billion of taxpayers’ money in a gamble that has been described by industry leaders such as John Linton of Exetel as a ‘surprise’. But does anyone want a $43 billion surprise? A $43 billion surprise—and these are my words, not his—is hardly a well-managed program.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley interjecting—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would senators on my right stop shouting across the chamber.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about those on your left?

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Linton went on:

So why did it come as a surprise—because it had absolutely no thought behind it …

As we embark on the $43 billion taxpayer spend over a decade to build the National Broadband Network, demand is shifting to wireless. There is a lot of forethought in that! Analyst Simon Molloy commented in the AFR recently:

You never know where the turning points are until they’ve gone past.

                   …                   …                   …

Communications users are voting with their dollars for mobility.

That is code for they are voting for wireless. But that is not what Minister Conroy and Rudd Labor are hell-bent on building.

While Minister Conroy spins a hole way downward with his National Broadband Network and his NBN implementation strategy, NBN Co. is embarking on some trial projects of its own. There are five national test sites where different roll-out techniques will be trialled. One of those is in the marginal semirural South Australian electorate of Willunga, which is about one hour’s drive south of Adelaide. In fact, it is the smallest of the test sites. Willunga’s local council put a submission to NBN Co. on Friday, 26 February and some three days later found out they were getting what they are getting. By the very next Monday, three days later, on 1 March, they found out they were getting what they supposedly wanted. The council’s group manager, Mr Brian Hales, said that it was ‘a bit of a surprise’. Was this a burst of efficiency from Minister Conroy, his department and NBN Co. or a welcome announcement in Labor’s most marginal South Australian seat, the state electorate of Mawson?

What the electorate can expect from Rudd Labor and Rann Labor is delivery for marginal seats and delivery based on mateship rather than on merit. There is no management of major projects. There is waste as a result of these major projects, and that waste clearly has an impact on the Labor states and our one Liberal state.

As for water and the lack of a national agreement for the River Murray, Premier Rann tries to say that the water coming to South Australia is of his making—probably part of his mateship with Prime Minister Rudd! It is clearly made by Mother Nature not by Premier Rann. The only things that are made by Rudd Labor and Rann Labor are the mismanagement of major projects and the waste that follows therefrom. It is a tragedy.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was interesting that Senator Fierravanti-Wells asked that their side stop yelling.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you know what I meant.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a nice interlude that acknowledged that their side were getting a little worked up—

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Next time you make a mistake, I’m sure we’ll point it out to you, Sunshine.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

a little tetchy and a little overexcited about things.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senators on my left, stop shouting across the chamber.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rest my case.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bilyk will never make a mistake in this place. She’s so perfect.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take what Senator Fierravanti-Wells said. It is a compliment. I thank her for that compliment. Is Senator Barnett standing up for a reason? Is he going to object, like in question time? No; he is leaving. He probably does not want to hear what I am going to say. I have asked him if he actually supports the NBN in Tasmania for the Tasmanian people.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will Hodgman does.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will Hodgman does. Thank you, Senator Polley, for that interjection. I have called on Will Hodgman, the Leader of the Opposition in Tassie, to challenge Tony Abbott, but to date I do not think he has. Tony Abbott is going to come in and take money out of the NBN. All Tasmanians will suffer. I am wondering what the Tasmanian senators on that side of the chamber really think about that. Are they just following Tony Abbott, like little sheep all in a row, doing what he says? After all, we know who rules the Liberal Party. It is Tony Abbott and Senator Abetz. The people of Tasmania want to be very frightened that Will Hodgman does not have the moral fortitude to stand up to them and support the NBN project in Tasmania for Tasmanians.

Let me get back on track. The opposition had 12 long years in government to make some improvements, but what did they do? Nothing. All they did was rip money out of education and health. They come in here and try to rewrite history. They have this alternative history. It is like a child’s fairytale. They try to rewrite history.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They try to rewrite Hansard.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right; they try to rewrite Hansard. Thank you, Senator Collins, for that interjection as well. They rewrite the history. They were so wonderful in their 12 years that the people of Australia voted them out. They were pretty good, weren’t they? As I said, Tony Abbott wants to rip money out of the NBN, which is one of the best things to happen to Tasmania in a long time—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And the nation.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and the nation. Thank you, Senator Polley, for that interjection. We still have not heard from Will Hodgman. He has got till Friday night, as Saturday is election day in Tassie and South Australia. Will he have the moral fortitude and the courage to stand up to Tony Abbott? I do not think so. The people of Tasmania should be very bothered by that.

Those on the other side of the chamber are unreliable. They voted not to invest in schools and education. They voted not to invest in the infrastructure that was so greatly needed through the global financial crisis. The stimulus package that we introduced helped save Australia from the worst parts of the global financial crisis. We on this side are working for a modern Australia and a modern economy. I ask those on the other side: what would Australia be like today if we had not intervened and if we had not had Building the Education Revolution, for example? They have no vision and they are out of touch. They just knock things for the sake of knocking things; they oppose things for opposition’s sake. They oppose everything that comes along.

They had their 12 years. Let us be reasonable about this. They had 12 years and they could have done a whole lot of work in the education area. They could have given some money to some of the schools that needed new facilities. But no, they would rather hoard it and not spend it on education. Nationwide our children have been missing out on all these benefits that the Rudd government is now introducing.

What do those opposite want to do? They want to introduce a big new tax. Of course they do not want to call it a tax; they want to call it a levy, because that is a little bit different. The big new tax on business will have an impact on Australian families, and anybody so naive that they do not think it is going to happen is, once again, living in the little alternative fantasy world that those on the other side insist on living in.

Let us talk about the historic and fundamental change to the future of Australian education. The My School website, for example, has opened up transparency and consistency in reporting of schools. Previously this did not happen. The Rudd government is delivering on the changes that will help build a better future for our children and for our nation. Let us have a look at the My School website. It will help us distribute around $2.5 billion in funding through the national partnerships. The My School website has allowed people to go onsite and compare their school with like schools so that they can see how well their school is performing. There have been comments to Julia Gillard, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education, in regard to the fact that really positive outcomes have already started happening because of the My School website. Some parents had been concerned about how their school was performing and they have now been able to verify their concerns and take action.

The Rudd government has committed a total of $1.5 billion to assess the low socioeconomic status schools. We have committed $540 million for literacy and numeracy and we have committed $550 million for improving teacher quality. Around 2,500 schools will benefit directly from these programs. The website data has identified 110 schools which would have missed out on this funding, schools that would not previously have picked up this funding. Julia Gillard, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education, has done a fantastic job in the short time that we have been here—compared to the length of time the opposition were in government and did nothing. She has come in and made fantastic progress in reforming the education system, as I said, so that our children can get a decent education and our children’s children can get a decent education, and that is one of the most critical things, I believe, for our children to achieve.

At the beginning of March she also released the final consultation documents for Australia’s first national curriculum. This will allow students to move around Australia knowing that they are studying at the same levels as students in other states. In our society today where people are moving fairly frequently, not just within their own areas but also interstate, I think it is an absolutely wonderful program. This is a significant milestone for Australian education.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The draft curriculum has been developed by education and curriculum experts. It has been shaped by the advice of teachers and principals and it will be one of the first in the world to be delivered online, making it dynamic and accessible. It has got a back-to-basics approach which I think is really important. It focuses on maths, English, science and history and provides a contemporary view of the world and the skills we need to find our way in the world.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do hear a lot of interjections from the other side but, having worked in the childcare industry for 12 years, I tell you that it does not matter to me how much noise they continue to make. I have worked in rooms with 25 to 30 screaming three-year-olds, and the behaviour on that side of the chamber is worse—I will acknowledge that—than a lot of the three-year-olds.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Bilyk, it has become too loud.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. With regard to the national curriculum, as I said, it provides a contemporary view of the world and the skills we need to find our way in it, and for our children that has to be fantastic. Over 150 schools around the country will be trialling this curriculum. After years of neglect under the previous government, the Rudd government is modernising the education system. That is the stark difference between them and us. They did nothing. They took money out of the education system, they took money out of the health system, and here are we trying to revolutionise both the education and the health systems.

We are putting computers in schools and building new school facilities and improving education outcomes for all students. Again I have to ask those opposite: why don’t you want students to have the new computers? Why don’t you want students to have new schools? Why don’t you want students to be able to enjoy the new facilities and the new buildings and the new outdoor areas?

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And the teachers—

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Polley, that is a great interjection—and the teachers! And the community as well, because these school halls are for the whole of the community to use. Not that long ago I had the pleasure of attending Kingston Primary School’s new hall for a community activity, and it was absolutely wonderful and everybody there was really pleased with it.

With regard to the absolutely bizarre comment from the opposition that somehow schools do not want these facilities, can I say that schools have to sign off on these facilities. Read the guidelines. The schools have to actually sign off. Nobody is forcing the schools to take these buildings. Why would you not want to improve education outcomes for all students? Why are the opposition so anti-education? I challenge them to tell me. I note there is a Tasmanian senator on the other side. I challenge them to tell me which schools they would not give the money to. Which schools in Tasmania do they not want to have those improvements? Which schools should we take the money from? Tell me which schools you would like us to take the money from.

Building the Education Revolution has not been mismanaged. Those on the other side come in here with their broad accusations but they have no proof. They come in here and cite articles from the Australian. I think that is the work of their tactics committee. Every day they sit down in their office first thing in the morning, read the Australian, see what is in there and say, ‘We’ll have a question on that in question time or we’ll take that up at some other time.’ And off they go, citing the Australian like it is some wonderful—

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don’t have to talk about the Australian.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection. It is not only the Australian; there are other forms of media that they quote. I did hear Senator Barnett talk about radio 2GB or 2GE or something. I am happy to stand corrected on what the actual radio station was. But everything that is said in the media, on the radio or in the newspaper, is gospel to them. It is just true.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And email. Don’t forget email.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is exactly right, Senator Polley. We cannot forget emails because emails are very important pieces of information. In fact, to receive an email you need a computer, and to be able to work a computer you need to learn how. Here are we, offering computers to students in schools, and those on that side knock them back, saying: ‘No, no, no. We don’t agree with that. We don’t think that should happen.’ You cannot trust those on the other side. The base hypocrisy of them when they come in here! They are happy to be there at the opening of extensions to schools or whatever. They are happy to come along and get in the photo shoots. I know of opposition members in the other place who have taken the credit for getting the funding. They have actually put it into newsletters. You cannot trust the Liberal Party.

The Rudd government will deliver; the Rudd government is delivering. The opposition had 12 years, as I said, and did nothing. They just cannot live with the fact that they are in opposition and we are in government. They cannot deal with it, so they want to rewrite everything and have their own alternative history. It would make really great reading if it was not so farcical. The government’s economic stimulus plan has worked. The Australian economy has worked well over the last 12 months. In fact, I wonder where we would be if the government had not taken that action. The Rudd government acted decisively and very, very quickly.

Those opposite, particularly in the Senate, are like Senate vandals. They just want to sabotage everything. They want to sabotage the economic and fiscal strategy that the Rudd government put up, which was designed to save Australia from the worst part of the global financial crisis. We have done that. We have kept Australians in jobs. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been given to people because of Building the Education Revolution. Those on the other side are a risk to our economy because they are so negative. They are just going to block everything. They just want to bring in new big, fat taxes. Mr Abbott wants to bring in a big, fat tax, and that is only the beginning. I think it took him 34 days to change his mind on that. They have a relentlessly negative approach. As I said, they are in opposition and they just oppose for opposition’s sake. Let us talk about Mr Abbott and his big, fat tax.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do we have to?

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not particularly want to, but we have to be fair about this. Mr Abbott has never held an economic portfolio.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you?

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, but I am not the Leader of the Opposition. I have never laid claim to doing the things he has. Even Peter Costello would not have Tony Abbott as his deputy because he knew that Tony Abbott did not take economics seriously. Tony Abbott opposed and voted against the stimulus package during the economic downturn and he said he would stop the school building program which is supporting tens of thousands of jobs and tradies and small business people. And here are we, helping every school in Australia.

Let us look at what those in opposition in Tasmania think about education. We all know how important education is. It transforms lives. Maybe that is the fear of those on the other side. Maybe they do not want an educated Australia. Maybe they are a little bit paranoid that people might learn things. They seem to have an anti-education program going on. Let me see what is happening in Tasmania. Mr Hodgman there was talking the other day about levies in schools. Let us think about what they are doing there. Under a Bartlett Labor government in Tasmania, 40 per cent of families do not pay school levies. But Mr Hodgman has made great claims about what will happen with levies. Less than 50 per cent of families stand to receive immediate benefit from the Liberal promise and the rest will have to either pay more or see kids and their schools go without. That is how much the Liberal Party in Tasmania—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They will have to check with Senator Abetz.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, they will have to check with Senator Abetz, because I am sure he is pushing for a leadership challenge. Will Hodgman cannot guarantee, and is not guaranteeing, that levies will be abolished. I can see Eric moving across to the other place, cruising his way in.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Bilyk, continue. I was referring to the interjections, not to you.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you so much, Mr Acting Deputy President. I did say to the previous chair that it is fine; I worked with children around the three-year age group for a number of years. Although those opposite are worse, I am quite happy to just ignore them. But thank you for that.

Under a Will Hodgman government in Tasmania—should the worst scenario happen—there will be no more money for education. The department will be told to find the money, or they will have to recoup it from parents in high schools. It will mean moving away from literacy and numeracy programs. It will mean fewer books in schools. It will mean fewer pens and fewer school trips for students in Tasmania. As a Tasmanian senator, that is of great concern to me.