The federal budget brought down last night was the best, and some would argue, final chance for the government to stop the rot. Behind on opinion polling for many months, it is staring at a potential election day thrashing later this year unless it starts to claw back support.

A $15 billion surplus offered it the chance to splash out on everything from superannuation and green initiatives to child and aged care, tax cuts and education. It remains to be seen whether or not voters have become inured to the ritual of treasurer Peter Costello bribing them with their own money, but it was always a safe bet he would not spend it conservatively finding out.

Areas that deserve particularly close consideration by those weighing their votes are funding for aged and child care and education. These three sectors really are the litmus tests for just how empathetic a government is to the primary concerns of its citizens.

All three areas are under stress. It does not take the call last week, from the Australian Council of Commerce and Industry, for an additional $8 billion investment in learning over the next three years to make parents aware that education is chronically under funded.

Class sizes are creeping up, teaching resources are scarce, language programs have all but disappeared and support for special-needs students fails to meet demand.

Child and aged-care funding under this government have created monopolies and some very rich service providers, but whether or not the money has delivered the sorts of outcomes we should expect for the most vulnerable members of our communities is very much open to debate.

For a start, wages in both sectors are appalling, staffing levels barely at a level necessary to meet minimum standards, and licensing and accreditation procedures are weighted in favour of the provider.

More money is definitely needed within our education system, from primary schools to universities, but money in itself won’t fix the other two sectors.

There, the questions remain. Are the needs of children in care, and our aged, best met by private enterprise?

Are battery-hen childcare centres in shopping malls and small commercial blocks the best option to cater for the developmental needs of our young, or are they more concerned with profit than nurturing potential?

Is the aged-care industry best equipped to deliver quality care, or is it more concerned with return per unit?

Are child and aged-care policies about tax rebates and bed numbers or improved outcomes?

Do they just deliver more money to sectors that are already exceedingly profitable for the businesses that service them, or do they also seek improved service delivery?

And, importantly, what does the opposition have on the table? Do its policies have the potential to improve outcomes?

Climate change, self-sustainability and superannuation are all crucial issues that should have received special attention in this budget, and in the policies of government and the opposition.

But child and aged-care and education are fundamental to who we are as a society and what we will become in the future. The issue shouldn’t be about whether working mothers can find a place for their child and have the capacity to afford it, but about just what sort of care will be provided.

Equally, the flow of government funds into aged care should be less about beds for bodies and more about creating a dignified quality of life for our elderly.

On another matter, I’ve been more than slightly bemused by assertions from attorney general Philip Ruddock that he will introduce retrospective legislation to stop David Hicks or his father, Terry, profiting from books and interviews about his experiences in Guantanamo Bay.

It was Ruddock who said he couldn’t possibly bring Hicks home from the Cuban hellhole because he could not retrospectively introduce legislation to try him for crimes that didn’t exist at the time he was alleged to have committed them.

It’s beyond me just how Ruddock, with a straight face, can now declare he will create whatever law is necessary to block Hicks from access to funds to rebuild his future.

It is hardly likely that the proceeds from such an exercise would in any way deliver adequate compensation for the detention he has endured for the past five years.

Hicks’ return is expected as early as next week. He has nine months imprisonment in South Australia’s Yatala Prison awaiting him.