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

I move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges the Government's failure to deliver on its promise to provide a computer for every secondary school student between years 9 to12 within the original budget commitment of $1 billion;

(2) condemns the Government for promising to families that they would not have to pay for charges associated with using the laptop computers, and then for breaking that promise by authorising schools to charge fees and levies to parents to use the laptops; and

(3) calls on the Government to explain to families why it has broken its promise and why parents should be the ones to pay up to hundreds of dollars to make up the funding shortfall associated with the program, at a time when cost of living pressures are increasing.

Let us look briefly at the history that has led to the unfortunate situation of parents now having to foot the bill for the computers in schools program. The computers in schools program was once the centrepiece of Labor's education policies, but now it is another in a long list of programs where so much was promised and so little delivered. When the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and soon to be Prime Minister again, stood up at a press conference before the 2007 election, laptop in one hand and microphone in the other, and promised all Australian parents that he would provide a computer for their child, they took him at his word. Labor's original education promise was $1 million to give a computer to every student in Australia in years 9 to 12. That was approximately one million students and therefore each computer was to cost the taxpayer $1,000.

At budget time in 2008, that became a $1.2 billion program and the government started using weasel words like 'access to a computer' as if they would not be held to account to their promise of a computer on every desk. In its first year of operation under the stewardship of the former minister for education, Julia Gillard, now Prime Minister and soon not to be, computers were allocated to less than 10 per cent of public schools in Australia. Many schools that were promised computers in midyear 2008 had still not received a single computer when their students left for Christmas that year. Freedom of information applications in estimates hearings forced the government to reveal that the program was underfunded by $1 billion, because it had not occurred to the Prime Minister that giving someone a computer without software, networking or IT support is pointless.

Departmental figures released under FOI in 2008 demonstrated that in order to deliver on the election promise of one computer for every child in years 9 to 12, the whole program would cost more than $5 billion. This was based on figures showing that states were going to have to commit $3.27 for every federal dollar under the $1.2 billion program.

Minister Gillard then tried to pass these costs on to the states but the states refused to pay for her federal Labor mess. Then the New South Wales Labor government dropped a bomb. In an interview in October 2008 the New South Wales Premier, Nathan Rees, confirmed on The 7.30 Report that the government's computers in schools program was in freefall across Australia, confirming what the coalition had known all along. Responding to a question about why his government was unable to take part in the second round of the program, Mr Rees said:

Well, the most recent advice to me from some of the other jurisdictions is that they [ha d] serious reservation as well.

Shortly thereafter, New South Wales withdrew from the program altogether and others states threatened to follow suit.

The South Australian and ACT governments then said that they were going to use the funding for new computers to replace old computers rather than increase the numbers of computers in schools. The Western Australian government threatened to withdraw from the program. By late 2008 the computers in schools program was in freefall and to save it the then minister for education was forced to announce a further $807 million at a Council of Australian Governments meeting as a bandaid solution, bringing the cost to over $2 billion by the end of 2008. The government attempted to blame the global financial crisis for the budget going into deficit—when in doubt, in emergency, break glass and blame the global financial crisis! It is a change from blaming Work Choices; it the new 'in emergency, break glass and mention Work Choices'.

The reality is that cost blow-outs in programs like computers in schools are driving down the surplus. It is economic incompetence and bungling mismanagement that is leading Labor to only produce budget deficits. I cannot recall any government in history where a $1 billion budget blow-out was considered acceptable.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A Labor budget!

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

Exactly; another Labor budget. Since then there have been two further budget blow-outs for computers in schools. The 2009-10 and the 2011-12 budgets have added a further $400 million to the cost of the program for so-called maintenance, bringing the total cost now to $2.4 billion. That is now a $1.4 billion blow-out.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pretty good for Labor.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to 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.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Essentially, what we have heard from the member for Petrie in response to this motion is that, firstly, lots of schools have some computers so we should not really worry about how many do not have computers and, secondly, the Labor government have spent lots of money and are even spending more so how could we dare to criticise. Neither of those are good responses to the core of this motion, which is that we have a substantial program here which has been maladministered and has not delivered on the commitments that were made. In 2007 there was a very clear promise made by the Labor Party, in seeking government, that $1 billion would be spent so that there would be a computer for every secondary student between years 9 and 12. That has simply not been delivered upon.

When this bold, shining vision first appeared some people were sufficiently prosaic to ask: 'That is interesting. What are the arrangements going to be for maintenance and support costs? What are the arrangements going to be under which software is provided for these computers? How is the operational expenditure going to be provided for the networking that is required for these computers?' But it seemed that those were mere details which were not to impede the grand vision. So we had a promise that was made and it quickly became evident that the detailed work had not been done to substantiate that promise.

How do we know this? One very interesting indication is to look at the second, now abandoned, limb of this program under which there was to be $100 million spent to connect schools with fibre. At the time, the then shadow minister for broadband and communications, Senator Stephen Conroy, had this to say:

The fibre project is based in industry estimates. The figure of $100 million is based on lengthy discussions with a range of providers and industry suppliers, the people who actually do it.

That was all right, then—they had done the detailed planning. So, mysteriously, when you fast forward to 2011 what do you find? You find that Dr Arthur of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations appeared before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications in March 2011 to announce that none of the $100 million had been spent at all. They had done absolutely nothing in relation to the promise that was made in 2007. A little later we learned, and it was confirmed recently in estimates, that in May 2011 a decision was made to simply abandon that expenditure altogether. It seems that responsibility for the connectivity part of the program has simply been quietly shuffled onto the National Broadband Network. Therefore, we may then be waiting a very long time indeed for this connectivity to be delivered.

The question is whether Australian citizens, parents, students and communities have received what was committed to them by the incoming Labor government in 2007. When the commitment was made to deliver computers to one million students for $1 billion, could that have been achieved by the deadline of December 2011? I have to admire the touching faith of the member for Petrie. We may be at June and it may well be the case that the total number of computers delivered is so far behind the required rate that you would need to more than double the rate if you are to achieve completion of the program by December 2011, but she is keeping the faith and I have to admire that. She is holding onto her faith in the absence of any objective evidence that this rate of delivery is going to be dramatically accelerated. There is no evidence for that.

Sadly, what we have seen in every aspect of this program is that it is quite clear that what was originally committed was dreamt up probably on the back of a whiteboard. There was very little detailed planning done. The economics simply do not hold up. As the shadow minister has eloquently demonstrated, it became clear as early as 2008 and 2009 that the program was simply not able to stack up based upon its own economics. There has been a desperate attempt to throw additional cash at this to try to keep the show on the road, but the reality is that this was not planned properly from the start. There was not even a skerrick of basic managerial competence and Australian parents and students are being let down as a result.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Over the last few months I have had the great pleasure to get around to a number of the schools in my electorate, both government and non-government schools, for the opening of a range of projects built under the Building the Education Revolution program. Universally, we are met with great gratitude because the teachers, students and parents of each and every one of those schools understand that this Labor government have visited upon them the greatest injection of investment into our school system since the Second World War.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They go to all the openings.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Melbourne Ports is quite right. Those opposite are always there to get a photograph taken.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I warn the member for Sturt.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are heroes in their electorates and cowards in Canberra. When they come to this place they disown the openings that they have been to and do nothing but 'slag and bag', as the member for Sturt is very fond of saying.

I recently had the pleasure of attending Warrawong High School, which has been the beneficiary of around 160 new computers that have been delivered under this program. That is one of the 19 schools within the electorate of Throsby which have received a total of over 4,570 computers under this particular program. It really is quite extraordinary that the member for Sturt, and those who have lined up to support him, brings this motion before the House when, as the member for Petrie has correctly identified, there are 17 schools within the member for Sturt's electorate that have received a total of over 3,700 computers under this program. I see that the member for Dawson is about to get up and speak. There is no doubt that he will have something to say about the 18 schools within his electorate that have received a total of nearly 2½ thousand computers under this program. When you think about it, there is only one reason why the member for Sturt brings this motion before the House: they have no policy and they have a lousy record when it comes to education. The only thing that they can point to after 11 years, during which the member for Sturt struggled, scratched, crawled and begged to be elevated to the front bench but was continually overlooked—you walk past it on your way into the classroom in most of the schools in my electorate—is a flagpole. Their contribution to the Australian education system is flagpoles. Do not get me wrong: I think flagpoles are very important. I think understanding the importance of our flag in our schools is very important, but when the importance of providing working-class kids in my electorate with a laptop, with a computer that is going to help them in their education, is stacked up against walking past and saluting a flagpole, I know what most of the parents would opt for.

So there is only one reason why the member for Sturt comes in here to slag and bag a program once again, and that is that they have a lousy record and no policy in this area. Their only policy is to gut the education budget. They went to the last election promising to cut more than $2.5 billion from schools. In addition to that, the spokesperson for education, the member for Sturt, has proposed a further $355 million worth of cuts—that is right, about $2.8 billion in cuts to our school system. So it is quite clear that the real reason they have come here to slag and bag a great program, these gormless characters who have lined up to stand behind the Manager of Opposition Business in defiance of the great work that is going on in their electorates, to stand up behind the member who does nothing but slag and bag and disrupt proceedings in this place, is that they have no policy and a lousy record. The motion should be rejected.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If there is one legacy this government will leave our school students it is a new definition for the word 'revolution'. Over the four years of the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments, we have come to learn that when the word 'revolution' is in the name of a program it is shorthand for bungled failure; it is shorthand for mismanagement and waste; it is shorthand for saying, 'We were in such a rush to put something together that we just grabbed a couple of words and stuck revolution on the end.' And here we find it again with the Digital Education Revolution, otherwise known as the computers in schools program.

It is a shame that the education revolution did not start with the Labor Party, because that is where basic mathematics is sadly deficient. Just about every aspect of their Digital Education Revolution promise in 2007 has been broken, and they are only a few months away from making it a complete set. The Australian people were promised a computer for every student in years 9 to 12. The Australian people were promised that the taxpayer cost for this program would be $1 billion. Australian parents were promised that there would be no additional fees or charges. They were promised that this program would be completed by the end of 2011. The clock is ticking. It has now been 3½ years in the making and there is only six months to go, and where are we up to? Last month the Prime Minister informed us that 413,000 computers had been delivered, out of the one million that were promised, achieving a student-to-computer ratio of around two to one, when one to one was promised.

They are not even halfway with their rollout and we are expected to believe that more than half a million computers will be delivered in the final six months of this program—that is, 600,000 computers in six months when it took 3½ years to roll out 400,000. No, there will not be a million computers by the end of this year and there will not be a one to one student-to-computer ratio. The sad truth is that thousands of students started secondary school after the promise was made by the government and they will leave before the promise is even halfway delivered in their school. There is a very good reason why they cannot finish the program: no-one in this government thought to add up the figures, no-one thought to think the policy through and no-one thought to even cost the delivery of a computer. Someone simply plucked the figure of $1,000 out of the air and thought, 'That'll do.'

It is the same methodology that is behind the digital television set-top box costing. Harvey Norman can deliver set-top boxes for half the amount, and they can deliver a computer for half the amount as well. The government simply have no excuse for going over budget, apart from the fact that they have no idea how to spend taxpayers' money wisely. Their answer is to simply keep throwing money around until something happens and then keep introducing taxes to keep the money supply coming. But Australian taxpayers are not an endless supply of money for the government to waste. Australian taxpayers are facing spiralling living costs precisely because of this attitude. Australian parents are struggling to pay for the essentials: electricity, water, food and school fees. The 2007 promise made when the Minister for Foreign Affairs was the Prime Minister guaranteed that parents would not have to foot the bill for this so-called Digital Education Revolution. Somewhere along the line, the policy changed. Somewhere along the line, a constituent in my electorate of Dawson was being told by the Proserpine State High School that they now had to pay a fee for their child to use a computer they got through this program.

Part of the reason behind that fee is mismanagement behind this program. Rather than deliver the student-to-computer ratio of one to one as promised, the government deducted one new computer for every existing desktop computer that the school already had on the books. They were deducting desktop PCs. I have to say that you cannot take home a desktop computer from school, and that was exactly what this scheme was promoting. Now the Proserpine State High School is delivering the one to one ratio to years 9 and 10 only, and that is a ratio of two to one for the whole school, while they are being forced to decommission out-of-date desktop computers.

This government stands condemned for breaking its promise to parents. On all aspects of this program, serious questions must be answered. Parents have the right to know why the cost has blown out to more than double. They have the right to ask why the delivery to date has been less than half. These parents know that they can purchase a brand new netbook with appropriate software for around $500. Somehow the government allocates $1,000 and then parents are asked to shell out hundreds of dollars more. Parents and students deserve better than that.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just love it when the Tories talk about teachers and teaching because they just do not get it. Since we have been in power, we have doubled the funding in education to $64 billion. That is more than double what the coalition put in. We have provided $16.2 billion in Building the Education Revolution, $109 million for 65 schools in my electorate. We have provided $2.5 billion for trade training centres. The Ipswich trade training centre is already up and running. It is located for Ipswich Grammar School, Ipswich Girls' Grammar School and St Eddies at St Edmund's College. We have provided $2.4 billion in the Digital Education Revolution. As at 31 March 2011 we have delivered 2,456 computers in 17 schools in my electorate of Blair—Ipswich and the Somerset. There are over 70,000 computers across Queensland. I say to the member for Dawson and the member for Sturt: can we have that money back? Can we have the computers back? We would love to have them back and place them in schools in my seat. Place them in Bundamba State Secondary College. We will have them in our Bundamba State Secondary College. We will have them at St Mary's in East Ipswich and Lowood State School. We will have them at Bremer State High School, Ipswich State High School and Kilcoy State High School. We will have the computers. If they do not want them, we will have them.

We know that education is not about the politics of left or right; it is about social justice; it is about increasing productivity in our economy; it is about improving small business; and it is about increasing national wealth. Those opposite have no idea about the prosperity of this country, because they disinvested in health when they were in power. They failed to invest in education when they were in power. Their policy is to strip away the trade training centre program that gives kids in working class areas in my electorate opportunities. Those opposite will take away the computers in schools. If they were in power, there would be no computers in schools.

What was their idea when they were in power with respect to investing in education? When I was elected in 2007, I went around to every single school that I could in my electorate to look at the school infrastructure. Teachers talked about the fact that they would have been lucky if they had got something from the Investing in Our Schools Program. It was one-tenth of what we have put in. Those opposite have no record with respect to education, whether it is for private schools or public schools. They have simply failed education in this country.

What did those opposite go to the last election wanting to do? Let us have a look. I want everyone to listen to this. I want everyone who is listening to parliament or who reads the Hansardthey might be a bit anal like us and read Hansardto know this. Those opposite went into the last election promising to cut the trade training centres, which would have affected 1,800 schools and 1.2 million students across the country. There would now be 20,000 fewer apprentices commencing a trade. They wanted to scrap our apprenticeship program. They failed to deliver any reform to disadvantaged students. I went to the going-away party for Peter Davis—a wonderful principal who had served Ipswich Special School for over 20 years. The teachers who were there that night, at the Brookwater Golf Club, said how fantastic it was that we had provided $200 million for disability support initiatives for students. This is what we did in the recent federal budget. Those opposite failed to do that. Because special education means nothing to them, they failed to invest.

Those opposite opposed the BER programs. The BER halls in my electorate at Fernvale and Esk were the flood recovery and evacuation centres. I say to the member for Dawson that he knows about flooding and problems in North Queensland. He knows about the impact of cyclones up in North Queensland. Those halls provided accommodation assistance. That is where the food, clothing and everything else went. The halls are important infrastructure, and people in rural towns in my electorate know very well how important they are. But I say to all those LNP members who were in flood affected areas in Queensland: they should have a really close look at their conduct in relation to BER and infrastructure. Those opposite have failed not just in road funding; they have failed in the digital education revolution because they are a bunch of Luddites when it comes to computers. They think telecommunications involves a carrier pigeon.

Those opposite opposed the NBN. They know very well how important the NBN is in regional and rural Queensland. They opposed computers in schools. They do not support people with disability. They do not support disadvantaged youth. They always want kids from working class families to stay down because the Tory entitlement of privilege has no respect for those people from battling areas. They believe in divine right to rule. That is what you hear from those opposite: it is hard; it is brutal; it does not support education; it does not support health; it does not support the people who really need it. You hear it when they speak. It is a disgrace the way they speak in relation to education and on so many other issues. The LNP members from Queensland should hold their heads in shame.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.