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

It is no wonder that the minister would rather talk about the nonexistent surplus—the dodgy surplus—than about education, because the government's record in education, and his as a minister in particular, is so shallow. Unfortunately, in the sector they know that education is no longer at the centre of government policy as it was when Julia Gillard, as the Deputy Prime Minister, was also the Minister for Education. Unfortunately, this minister now holds the portfolio and as a consequence education has moved to the outer reaches of the government—and doesn't it show.

In this consideration in detail stage, I would like to ask a number of questions about the budget papers. The first of those goes to the issue of computers in schools. The minister would know that, at page 58 of the 2011-2012 Budget Paper No. 3, $200 million per year was provided across the forward estimates as payments for the states for the Digital Education Revolution—the computers in schools program. The government previously advised that the $200 million for maintenance and upgrades was to support the states maintain and upgrade the new computers. This year, Budget Paper No. 3 2012-2013 at page 55 now provides $200 million for 2012-2013 only, rather than for each year of the so-called Digital Education Revolution. So across the forward estimates there has been a significant cut to that $200 million a year that was promised last year.

Can the minister explain why the $200 million is no longer provided across the forward estimates annually after 2012-2013? Is this the end of the Commonwealth's involvement in the Digital Education Revolution program? Doesn't this mean that the program now amounts to a one-off investment in computers by the government with the states now left with the cost of maintaining the one-for-one ratio of computers in schools when we know that the states are severely cash-strapped—except for Western Australia—and therefore are highly unlikely to be able to find the resources to maintain the laptops in schools program? They have also, of course, struggled already over the last few years to find the resources necessary to install and maintain the laptops program, leading to very long delays in the computers in schools program and, of course, the significant cost blowout that we have already seen in the laptops program. Turning to the response of the government to the Gonski review, Budget Paper No. 2 also suggested the government is currently working through the reform proposals in consultation with the states and the territories and other education stakeholders. It is also understood that modelling has been released to the sector for the years 2009 and 2010. TheSydney Morning Herald reported on 22 May:

But the first year-on-year comparison—between 2009 and 2010 funding—generated by the Gonski model, shows indexation in secondary schools falling to only 2.9 per cent and 3.8 per cent for primary schools. The executive director of the association, Geoff Newcombe, said the minister's promise that no school would lose a dollar now looked 'hollow'.

Can the minister confirm that indexation levels under the new model are as low as 2.9 per cent? Have further details been released to the sector on indexations since 22 May? How can the government assure all schools that they will now not lose a dollar under this model, if adopted, when indexation is in the range of two to four per cent rather than the approximately six per cent as is the current funding model—in other words, can the minister assure schools that they will not lose dollars in real terms over the next quadrennium of funding rather than his hollow promise at the moment that they will not lose one dollar. We know it would be a $4.2 billion cut to non-government schools if the indexation is not at six per cent but as low as zero. Will the minister make the policy and technical work being undertaken publicly available to all schools?

Finally, there are other issues I would like to raise about literacy and numeracy, the Australian National Audit Office report and the paltry response of the government to the Gonski review. If I get another opportunity, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will do that. As you would know, it is a five-minute opportunity to question the minister and then others will seek to have an opportunity. Should I get another opportunity, I would like to question the minister about the Australian National Audit Office report which found that the $540 million Smarter Schools National Partnership for Literacy has been a complete failure— (Time expired)

See this speech in context