Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is disappointing but not surprising that I have to stand here and respond to a motion criticising funding going to schools. We have been doing it since the day we got into government in 2007 and we continue to have to do it today. It is my responsibility today to put on the record the facts because the opposition tend to ignore the facts when they put motions like this forward. The closing statement from the member for Sturt was that the opposition do not oppose schools getting funding for computers and ICT yet they went to the last election wanting to cut more than $2.5 billion from schools. That was in August last year. The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Sturt this year proposed further education cuts of $355 million. That is $2.8 billion the Liberal Party want to cut from schools. No matter what the program is—whether it is building halls, libraries, trade training centres, science and language centres or performing arts centres or putting computers into schools—the opposition have opposed it every step of the way.

Let us get the facts on the record. With the National Secondary School Computer Fund the government committed in 2007 to $1 billion over four years to provide access to computers for every secondary school student in years 9 to 12. This is being implemented today by achieving a computer to student ratio of one to one for students in years 9 to 12 by 31 December 2011—a total of over 780,000 computers. You do not have to take just my word for it. Look at some of the school websites. I look at some of the school websites and their annual reports to see what they are saying about their computers. They are already at the two to one ratio and are talking about how they will move towards the one to one ratio by the end of the year. Some schools have already got the one to one ratio and some schools have gone beyond that and have got the one to one ratio for the earlier grades as well, so grades 8 as well as grades 9, 10, 11 and 12. In November 2008 the government also committed $807 million to supplement the original commitment so that state and territory education authorities could contribute to the legitimate oncost of installing the computers purchased through the fund. This is making sure that the schools and the students are getting the most out of this technology. The opposition do not acknowledge that computers are not just a type of word processor or are not just for downloading something but are to connect with other schools—to connect with schools interstate, to connect with schools overseas. That is what my schools are doing—they are going online through Skype and other programs. They are talking to students in Japan as part of their language lessons, in the new language centres that this Labor government built for them. So, we did commit to additional funding to ensure schools had the adequate infrastructure to make the most of these computers.

The opposition also fails to mention that from day one, beyond the initial funding to put the computers in the schools, we provided the ongoing funding to maintain these computers. What is the point of purchasing computers when four or five years down the track they are all obsolete and no-one replaces them? It was the first question the schools actually asked—what happens as these technologies age? We committed to maintaining them from day one. Those opposite are carrying on and saying there is a budget blow-out and all of a sudden there is more money going to computers in schools, but it was always part of our commitment. You actually have to read what our commitments were to understand that. We made a commitment and we are fulfilling that commitment to provide funding.

There are allegations that the government is forcing schools to charge fees and levies. The government does not support the charging of a fee or the imposition of a levy or co-contribution or bond from parents or carers for a computer provided under the National Secondary School Computer Fund. Some schools in limited circumstances are charging fees. Why are they doing that? Because schools and education authorities are required to maintain the investment in computers that they were making before the computer fund began. Many of the schools had programs in place and were already charging parents a computer levy. Of course those opposite want to attribute that levy to this government and the computers in schools program, even though it was already being charged. Some schools, in conjunction with their P&Cs or P&Fs, have chosen to provide more expensive computers, more expensive technology, and as a consequence are charging fees or requesting co-contributions. As I have already said, some schools are extending this program beyond years 9 to 12 so that more students in secondary schools can get access to this technology at younger ages. They may be charging fees, but attributing these fees to this program is just false.

The member for Sturt's 17 schools have got 3,730 computers under this program already. What are they saying? What are his school parents saying? The member for Grey has received 2,191 computers in 60 schools in his electorate. The member for Dawson has 2,422 computers at 18 schools. The schools in my electorate, who have 2,899 computers already under this program, are very pleased to have this technology. It is not technology that the previous government were willing to provide. It was not an investment that the Howard government were willing to make in our schools. They were not providing the computers; they were not providing the funding for Smart Boards. They were not providing new libraries. They were not providing hall facilities or trades training centres or new science centres or new language centres or new programs for partnering between state and private schools. They were not committing to education at all. This was not an important area for them. It is not an important area for them now.

We only need to listen to their election commitments in August last year, and we only need to listen to the member for Sturt and the Leader of the Opposition this year, to understand the sorts of cuts that they want to make in this area. They want to cut computers in schools—they made that very clear—and cut the trades training centres. Every school that has not built their new hall or library, that is it—they do not need that funding any more. They are a party that is not committed to education, that is not committed to the future of our children. Their opposition to the National Broadband Network is another prime indication that they do not understand the future of this country. They do not understand what the youth of today need to prepare them for the jobs of the future. They do not see computers as necessary in our schools. They do not see them as important. They do not see broadband and its role in relation to education as important.

I am very proud of what this government is doing in education. I am very proud of the commitment we are making not just in relation to the infrastructure, as important as that infrastructure is, but also in relation to other programs such as the extra funding for the National Partnership Agreement for Literacy and Numeracy and the extra funding that we are putting towards creating specialist teachers so we can get more science and mathematics teachers. It took this government to actually develop a national curriculum. We are finally getting a national curriculum in this country so no matter where you live, no matter where your job takes you—if you are in the defence forces and you happen to be a family that moves around a lot and moves across borders—you can guarantee that your children are being taught the same in maths, science and English in a school in New South Wales as they are in Queensland or Western Australia or Tasmania. This is what a Labor government is committed to. We are committed to education; we are committed to our young people. We take a holistic approach to education. We want to improve education and provide the best education we can for our children, for their parents and for the broader school community. We value our teachers, we value our parents and we value our students. That is what with this Labor government is about.

See this speech in context