"Our future growth relies on competitiveness and innovation, skills and productivity... and these in turn rely on the education of our people"
About this Quote
Austere as an audit and just as strategic, Gillard’s line turns “education” from a feel-good public good into core economic infrastructure. The sentence is built like a supply chain: future growth depends on competitiveness and innovation; those depend on skills and productivity; those depend on education. By the time you reach “our people,” the argument has quietly shifted from ideology to inevitability. If you accept the first premise - growth as the paramount national metric - you’re almost forced to accept the last: education spending isn’t charity, it’s competitiveness policy.
The subtext is distinctly technocratic and distinctly political. “Competitiveness” is a loaded word in an era of anxious globalisation and post-crisis belt-tightening: it suggests Australia is in a race, not a debate. “Innovation” adds a modern gloss, a promise that the country can outrun structural constraints (commodity dependence, the China boom’s hangover) by becoming smarter rather than simply working harder. It’s also a cultural cue: aspirational, future-facing, a rebuttal to anti-intellectualism without ever naming it.
As a Labor prime minister, Gillard was speaking into a familiar bind: public appetite for strong services colliding with suspicion about government “spending.” So she frames education as productivity-enhancing, not redistributive; as a national “we,” not a sectoral ask from teachers or universities. Even the ellipses do work, implying a longer ledger of economic virtues she doesn’t need to list because the logic has already tightened its grip. The intent is persuasion by causality: fund education, or accept decline.
The subtext is distinctly technocratic and distinctly political. “Competitiveness” is a loaded word in an era of anxious globalisation and post-crisis belt-tightening: it suggests Australia is in a race, not a debate. “Innovation” adds a modern gloss, a promise that the country can outrun structural constraints (commodity dependence, the China boom’s hangover) by becoming smarter rather than simply working harder. It’s also a cultural cue: aspirational, future-facing, a rebuttal to anti-intellectualism without ever naming it.
As a Labor prime minister, Gillard was speaking into a familiar bind: public appetite for strong services colliding with suspicion about government “spending.” So she frames education as productivity-enhancing, not redistributive; as a national “we,” not a sectoral ask from teachers or universities. Even the ellipses do work, implying a longer ledger of economic virtues she doesn’t need to list because the logic has already tightened its grip. The intent is persuasion by causality: fund education, or accept decline.
Quote Details
| Topic | Learning |
|---|
More Quotes by Julia
Add to List
