Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to a report in today’s papers about the Investing in Our Schools Program. I also refer him to his statement of 20 February 2007 about the Investing in Our Schools Program, when he asked himself, ‘Do I think that it is a useful program worthy of bipartisan support?’ and then answered his own question by saying, ‘You bet.’ In light of that statement, why has the Prime Minister cut $800 million from primary school budgets?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question. The program funded by the previous government, as you would know if you were being truthful in this place, concludes in 2008. It concludes after four years. I recall that when the former Prime Minister made the final announcement of a funding allocation he said that it was ‘the final allocation’ for a four-year program. If the honourable member for Casey is going to stand at the dispatch box and seek to engage in a debate on schools policy, I would suggest he do so honestly, because that question was not an honest reflection of the previous government’s policy and the honourable member for Casey is fully aware of it.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order which goes to relevance. The Prime Minister said it was a program worthy of bipartisan support—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Casey can resume his seat.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on the point of order: I refer to the standing order which goes to disruptive conduct. Very clearly, the Prime Minister was answering that question. The sole point of that point of order was to disrupt the orderly proceedings of the House. I ask you to take action.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Prime Minister can continue.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To reinforce the point I just made in response to the question of the honourable member, if you go to the forward estimates for this period you just see, effectively, blank, blank, blank, blank, going out beyond the period concerned. The honourable member knew that before he asked the question. I think if we are going to have an honest debate here about education policy it has to be framed in honest terms. Those opposite are here defending a policy which they constructed to conclude in 2008. The Prime Minister at the time, when he announced the last allocation of funds, said that it was ‘the final allocation’ of funds. What we have here is an entirely bogus question delivered by the member for Casey. He knows it full well. Presenting such a question to the parliament in that manner I think belittles him, frankly, in terms of the honesty which underpins him and the standing I previously held for him.

On the question of schools policy, I say this: this government is passionate about an education revolution. This government believes in investing in our schools. This government is committed to a $2.5 billion plan to construct trades training centres in every one of Australia’s secondary schools, government and non-government, right across the country and, on top of that, to deliver $1 billion over four years to ensure that our kids in year 9 and above have access to computers in schools. There is a $62.5 million plan over four years: Local Schools Working Together. These represent effective investments in building up our schools into the future. We are a party and a government who are passionate about the future of education in our country, passionate about schools, passionate about the need to invest in our schools and passionate about the future which our kids have before them, and that is why you have billions of dollars worth of new programs being invested in the future of those kids. I would have thought that the honourable member for Casey, in advancing that question, would have reflected a little more honesty in the way in which he put it forward.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister just reflected on the character of the member for Casey. If he wants to do that, we would welcome a substantive motion on it and we will have a debate about who is telling the truth in relation to the funding.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I find no point of order. The member for North Sydney has had his opportunity to make his point.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, further to the point of order: it is an offensive reflection and it should be withdrawn.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I think that if members would review the writings about this in House of Representatives Practice they would see that most of the comments that were made from the equivalent of this chair down in the old place that are referred to were made by Speaker Snedden. Speaker Snedden simply put that people who go into public life, get themselves elected as members of parliament, are often called upon to take things that outside seem a bit harsh. If in fact it is the case that people are concerned that a person’s political honesty is reflected upon in the way in which things are put to the chamber, and that that is something that we should be mortified by, perhaps we are not allowing ourselves to have the type of robust debate that we should have.

I have indicated that I am not really very happy when question time is used to make points about personalities. I mentioned that to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation yesterday. I would rather the contest be a contest of ideas. But on this occasion I think that we would be getting a little overly precious. Even though the member for Casey might feel a little aggrieved, I am sure that his skin is thick enough to take it on this occasion.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, you have just given us a dissertation from the chair about this matter. The previous practice of Speakers during my time in this place, from Halverson onwards, has been that when there have been offensive comments made they have asked that they be withdrawn. I well recall that only last year numerous members of the then opposition stood up in this place and asked for the withdrawal of a comment about the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister. At that time it was asked that the offensive comment be withdrawn. In our attempts to establish what are the new rules under Speaker—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. I ask the member for Casey if he was offended by the comments made.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I am offended, because—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume his seat. I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw unreservedly.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the offence which has been taken by the member, I of course withdraw.