Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Hansard source

That is probably cheap for Labor in comparison to what they usually do. The pink batts program was even worse. The delivery of the computers has become an impossible mission for this government. Labor promised to deliver one million computers to every student in years 9 to 12 at $1,000 a computer by December 2011 and to have all of these computers connected to fast, 100 megabits per second, fibre internet. As at 31 March 2011, less than half that number have been delivered and none of the computers have been connected to fast internet, not one. On these figures, the government will need to deliver most computers in six months—more computers in six months than they have delivered in four years—to keep even part of this promise.

I will return to the point of this motion. In early 2010 reports emerged that schools were charging parents fees and levies to access the computers in schools program. One such example was Seaford public school in South Australia. As funding was insufficient to cover the real costs associated with the program, this school was forced to charge a yearly levy of $365 in order to allow a student to take a laptop home to use after hours, on the weekends and during holidays. The children of parents who could not afford this fee would not be able to use a computer during these times. It appears that all students are not equal in the computers for schools program. At that time the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, categorically ruled out any additional charges could be applied on this program. He said:

When we are providing that level of support—

$2 billion—

to schools for computers in schools I don't see any basis for any school then subsequently charging parents for its use.

Those were the words of the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd about the centrepiece of his 2007 election campaign. Further evidence at Senate estimates hearings provided by the department of education confirmed the government policy last year was:

… the Commonwealth position was that, as is reflected in the COAG agreement, the Commonwealth is providing for the total cost of ownership of those devices for four years and that there is no justification for additional charges to be levied so that computers can be taken home; that any issues that might arise in terms of costs flowing from that, such as lost computers or damaged computers, can be handled by way of specific policies and agreements with parents on those issues; and to repeat that, in the Commonwealth’s point of view, there is no justification for parents’ levies to cover the cost of taking a computer home.

It was promised that such instances of abuse where schools were charging fees for the program that was supposed to be free would be investigated and resolved. More and more examples have emerged over the past two years of parents being charged for computers. In December 2010 in the dead of night the guidelines for the computers in schools program were changed so as to allow schools to pass on additional costs to parents. The computers in schools program is no longer free. There is a clear and undeniable broken promise by this government and we have a bundle of examples of where this is occurring, which some of my colleagues will discuss in this debate. There have been examples in Tasmania, South Australia, Queensland and New South Wales. The charges have ranged from insurance charges to take-home fees. Parents who are already struggling with cost of living pressures are rightly asking why the Rudd-Gillard government that promised them so much is now breaking another promise.

As we enter 'fundamental injustice week' and approach the anniversary of the political assassination of a Prime Minister, it is worth considering that the changes to this program were made after the member for Griffith was assassinated, because if he were still Prime Minister he would not have countenanced parents being charged under this policy that was the centrepiece of his election campaign. I want to conclude by suggesting that the coalition does not support students having access to appropriate ICT in schools to meet their needs on a cost basis charged by this government in a broken promise. The former coalition provided funding for the popular Investing in Our Schools Program. Our policy, as was reflected in the 2010 election, is to give schools the funding for ICT so that they, or in collaboration with their school system, can make the appropriate decisions as to what equipment they wish to invest in for their students. We recognise that no school is the same or has the same needs. I believe it is not acceptable to promise Australian families free computers and then pass those costs on to the states, individual schools and parents. I commend the motion to the House.

See this speech in context