Email

Surplus raided for computers in schools: Opposition

Posted November 28, 2008 10:47:00
Updated November 28, 2008 10:55:00

The Federal Opposition says the Government has raided the surplus to fund its promise to put more computers in schools.

The Government has offered the states and territories an extra $800 million after they complained the initial funding did not cover installation and maintenance costs.

The program is designed to give schools a computer for every student in years 9 to 12.

Opposition education spokesman Christopher Pyne says it shows the Government cannot manage money.

"What this is is the biggest blowout in the Government so far, a 66 per cent blowout in the computers in schools program," he said.

"So we now know where the surplus is going and why the Government is going into deficit, it's because it can't manage money."

Ms Gillard says the extra money will cover purchasing, installation and maintenance costs.

"The states have to respond for themselves, but I would say this is a very, very fair package which meets legitimate costs, which will enable a state like New South Wales to facilitate students getting computers," she said.

Tags: education, schools, government-and-politics, federal-government, science-and-technology, computers-and-technology, australia, nsw

Comments (104)

Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.

• Mark:

  28 Nov 2008 11:17:07am

  I don't get it, Coalition. Is that a bad thing? The people voted for it.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Andrew:

    28 Nov 2008 11:30:45am

    Mark, the bad thing is that policies get implemented without proper costing. A 66% blow out is significant.
    
    Computers in schools was a good idea badly executed. It doesnt make for efficient government.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • wmc:

      28 Nov 2008 11:54:21am

      A 66% blow out isn't significant for the Labor Party. Look at the record of the last federal Labor government and the current state Labor governments.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • ddur:

      28 Nov 2008 12:21:42pm

      Dont worry people, we, the good working business owners have been working extra hard to get lots of GST and tax into the coffers. The BAS for the last quarter is in, the govt. is still making a fortune from fuel sales, approx 50 cpl, Food prices hav'nt dropped accordingly so there is more profit, service stations are making money so they will pay more tax (they work on cpl which hasnt changed but the cost is less), dont see prices coming down anywhere else.
      The truckies wont be off setting as much as their cost have dropped.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • MISSES:

    28 Nov 2008 11:31:52am

    It is not a bad thing... mismanagement and mis-costing are bad!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • M:

      28 Nov 2008 11:44:22am

      When are costings accurate? In an election year they are always understated, no matter the party.
      
      And costings are inherently difficult. It is virtually impossible to ascertain with any degree of certainty the minute detail necessary to determine what a national project will cost. It is fundamentally a guesstimate.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • wmc:

        28 Nov 2008 11:56:47am

        It's true, costings aren't always accurate.
        But Labor didn't account for cost categories that are obvious (installation, maintenance). Any capital item needs through life support but apparently this is news to Labor's numbers men (Swan and Tanner).

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Mark:

        28 Nov 2008 11:58:30am

        What you say is fair enough, but in this case, completely ignoring the cost of maintenance and software? That's a very bad oversight.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • MISSES:

        28 Nov 2008 11:59:39am

        costing is not accurate but 66% above the costing is worse!
        
        They should learn to do a proper costing ( education revelution? irony isnt it?)... labor should lead australian by example. This is not a good example for ordinary australian...

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • petert:

    28 Nov 2008 11:37:45am

    The problem is that the Government failed to include these in their original costings and it is quite incredible that they failed to do so. Every one of the additional costs was foreseeable. In not doing so, they were forcing a debt onto the States, one for which they had not budgeted and one which many (like NSW which is already in serious debt) cannot afford!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • ravensclaw:

    28 Nov 2008 11:38:30am

    Mark
    
    Swan and Rudd promised fiscal responsibility and economic conservatism. They have now squirmed their way into using the word "deficit", and now it is spend spend spend.
    
    You know it's funny. Up until now Rudd was the "Have a committee" party of Australia. They wouldn't actually do anything. Now it is spend spend spend, and none of it came as the result of a committee.
    
    Rudd's Labor are now the expert on two things.
    1. Committees.
    2. Fiscal Irresponsibility, NSW Labor style.
    
    Cheers

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • glasswalker:

      28 Nov 2008 11:51:36am

      Couldnt agree more Ravensclaw...
      
      Either way... I'm in IT... I build PC's for a living... reckon I could get a job for the Labor party?? I doubt it.. this should have been set up as a federal tender buying bulk from HP or *shudder* Dell... could save a lot more money that way and less raiding of the surplus..
      
      yet another poor fiscal management example from this govt... Shame the coalition has yet to show any signs of getting their act together.... roll on 2010 elections... country's stuffed no matter who gets in....

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Carl:

        28 Nov 2008 12:16:33pm

        Actual pc purchased is responsibility of each Statet government. NSW has a contract with Lenovo/Apple/Acer already in place and has for years. Each other state has similar.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Sam Guest:

    28 Nov 2008 11:38:35am

    I didn't, nor would anybody think that more spellchecking computer will "fix" education. You can still type words correctly on a whizzbang laptop or a crappy old 486. It's typical Labor overspending with no tangible benefit.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • M:

      28 Nov 2008 12:00:11pm

      The ubiquity of computers in all walks of life and at all levels of industry makes it imperative that children understand how to use them. A crappy 486 might be able to spell check, but it is woefully inadequate at running any other contemporary software and would seriously struggle with the internet (the greatest information resource in the known universe).
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Sam Guest:

        28 Nov 2008 12:24:07pm

        the 486 comment was not to be taken literally I admit I was exaggerating for effect, what I'm saying is the costings have blown out which is another example of economic mismanagement.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • GuyS:

    28 Nov 2008 11:43:56am

    Hey Mark,
    
    If you were a CEO who allowed a 66% blowout in just 12 months you would be kicked out the door.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Eric:

      28 Nov 2008 11:55:17am

      with a $60 million bonus in his pocket

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • braddles:

      28 Nov 2008 11:59:54am

      Not if you work for the Banks in the US.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• David:

  28 Nov 2008 11:24:17am

  Does Pyne really expect us to believe that drivel? The possibility of going into deficit is all because of the computer funding?.......wouldn't have anything to do with the global economy would it? It's time Pyne and his cronies realised the very reason they're not in government is because the Australian electorate is not as ignorant nor as gullible as he would believe.
  
  

  Agree (2) Alert moderator

  • John D:

    28 Nov 2008 11:35:22am

    It's more that there is a 66% overrun already on the project
    
    Labor have never been able to mange money, and this is just another example of it.
    
    As you can't see where the oppostion is coming from, you actually disprove your theory that the electorate isn't ignorant or gullible.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Jamie Bloomfield:

      28 Nov 2008 11:43:05am

      And what about the billions that The Howard and Co blew with their warship and airplane purchases? Didn't hear you bleating about that! See, that's the problem with Coalition supporters. They can "never, ever" find fault with their own side of politics, only with the other side. No sense of fairness at all.

      Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • wmc:

        28 Nov 2008 11:52:54am

        I can't recall a bigger defence blow-out than the submarines (you know, the ones that are supposed to be stealthy but sound like a rock concert under water).

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • ravensclaw:

        28 Nov 2008 12:00:17pm

        Jamie
        
        What about Labor and Beazley's Submarines.
        
        Sure they are fixed now thanks to the Libs, but weren't they the single biggest defence blowout in Australia's history... thanks to Hawke/Keating Labor???
        
        Cheers

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Peter:

        28 Nov 2008 12:00:20pm

        What warship purchases would they be Jamie? Oh and aircraft purchases for that matter?
        
        I hope you're not thinking that the JSF had been paid for already, if you are then you're sadly mistaken.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • glasswalker:

        28 Nov 2008 12:00:47pm

        Um... I think you'll find that there are equally as many "one-eyed" people in the Labor Camp... this country's govt is actually selected by a small group of people that think.. they are called swinging voters... people that actually way up options before they vote...
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Jeff O'N:

      28 Nov 2008 11:44:47am

      The only reason that the coalition manage the money better, is that they skimp and do not spend it on improvements to education and living standards. The politicians are supposed to be representing ALL of the people of Australia, not just the rich. Investing in the future does that, while having a huge bank balance does not. Money is worth nothing if it can not be spent.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • ravensclaw:

        28 Nov 2008 12:06:20pm

        Jeff O'N
        
        Why don't you actually read some of Costello's budgets instead of making completely false and unsubstantiated comments.
        
        Every federal source of expenditure whether it be health, education environment etc received substantial and very real increases in their budgets over Costello's reign as Treasurer.
        
        And if for example you decide to nitpick on say Howard's private school funding increase, please remember he only did that because inept state labor govts slashed funding to private schools. And Gillard is copying Howard policy on making inept Public Schools accountable.
        
        Money IS worth something if it is saved. you are wrong on that count too.
        
        Cheers

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • wmc:

        28 Nov 2008 12:08:46pm

        Peoples living standards have been increased as a result of tax cuts and increases in real wages (you'll note that Labor copied the Coalition's tax policy from the last election).
        
        As for spending on education, well, I have some first-hand knowledge. I work at a university and believe the Coalition was justified in cutting funding for universities because they don't adequately manage the funding they get. Universities are fat, lazy sinecures and would be better run by those with private sector experience.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

• EC:

  28 Nov 2008 11:25:01am

  The opposition has no idea what they are doing.
  
  Almost every economist and buisness leader agrees that Australia should not hesitate to go into a deficit.
  
  It is great to see the Rudd Government is funding infrastrucutre and this includes much needed funds for Health and Education.
  
  I am beginning to wonder who actually agrees with the Liberals, because buisness groups don't and the latest polling suggests the public doesn't either.

  Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • Peter:

    28 Nov 2008 12:01:19pm

    What on earth are you on about. Did you actually read the article?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Dave:

    28 Nov 2008 12:09:29pm

    Actually the latest polling shows that around 45% of the two party preferred vote is for the coalition.
    
    This despite having a leader who only twenty something percent of people want as preferred PM.
    
    There's a whole bunch of people who would prefer Rudd as PM but couldn't bring themselves to vote Labor. If anything ever happened to Rudd, the party would just about sink into oblivion.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • ravensclaw:

    28 Nov 2008 12:09:40pm

    EC
    
    When we experienced the impact of the Asian Financial Crisis, Howard didn't have a spending spree, yet he was able to guide us through that mess OK.
    
    Rudd has also inherited an economy in strong and solid shape.
    
    You are also putting words into the mouths of EVERY economist and business leader, which is of course very wrong of you.
    
    If your assumptions are false then your conclusions are irrelevant.
    
    Cheers

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Patch:

  28 Nov 2008 11:26:15am

  So the coalition is simultaneously furious at the government for not honouring their promise of more getting more computers in schools, and for the government getting computers in schools.
  
  Jeepers.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Peter:

    28 Nov 2008 12:03:43pm

    If you have a read Patch you'll see they're pointing the finger over not being able to manage a relatively simple, small project that happened to be one of Kevin's pillars of his 'educaion revoluion.'

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • Patch:

      28 Nov 2008 12:32:26pm

      Im not sure fixing the education system after a decade of neglect is relatively simple at all, Peter.
      
      But what does the coalition want? No more computers in schools? or more computers in schools?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Cliff Fletcher:

  28 Nov 2008 11:26:58am

  So people are complaining because our Government is spending more on education? That doesn't seem like a waste of resources, or economic mismanagement to me. It seems like an investment in our children's future.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Peter:

    28 Nov 2008 12:06:14pm

    Ok Cliff, so you are sending your child to a school and at the start of the school year you had to pay $1000 in fees. Then, you get another invoice saying that it'll actually cost you $1650 becasue the school overlooked a few details.
    
    Would you still be singing the same tune?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Dave:

    28 Nov 2008 12:23:40pm

    Let's say for example a teacher's salary + super + leave etc...is about $100,000.
    
    $800 million could cover the cost of an extra 1000 teachers for 8 years. Quite a lot longer than those computers will last. Even with regular maintenance, updates etc...the computers will probably need to be replaced at some point in the next 8 years. So there's another few hundred million.
    
    I'm not against putting more computers in schools. But I think one for every student is a bit excessive. Surely they are not going to be on the computer all day long, so I don't see why so many computers are needed.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Joel B1:

      28 Nov 2008 12:41:52pm

      I agree,
      
      My two kids in Primary school have two (2) internet accessible computers in each of their class-rooms.
      
      And it's a Public school.
      
      The kids use the computers for projects etc. but their teachers actually teach them and the computers are used like the library. That is, for research not teaching.

      Agree (1) Alert moderator

• michael (SE Qld):

  28 Nov 2008 11:27:12am

  When will the Liberals get it - you were voted OUT !
  
  The budget surplus belongs to us all and should be used to benefit all of society not just your mates ...

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • John D:

    28 Nov 2008 11:36:25am

    All hail the Labor welfare gravy train!!!
    
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • 2b:

      28 Nov 2008 11:44:21am

      Suddenly funding education is welfare?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • John D:

        28 Nov 2008 11:56:42am

        Education is a state resposibilty.
        
        Oh that's right, more mess caused by Labor

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Stephen:

        28 Nov 2008 12:10:48pm

        Ever heard of tertiary education?

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Mark:

        28 Nov 2008 12:09:00pm

        The common theme from all the Labor supporter posts here is that they're doing the right thing by spending money.
        
        Spending money is a means to an end, not an end of itself. I could spend $10b giving each school in the country a gym and it would do nothing to enhance academic performance.
        
        Policy designed on the basis of throwing in an input (money) and getting an output (computers) is destined to fail. One wonders whether they seriously considered what effect this would have on academic performance, if any.
        
        99% of Australian school students in years 9-12 already have access to a computer (one of the highest in the OECD). Studies have also shown that access to a computer has a negligible impact on academic performance.
        
        What is Labor trying to gain out of this policy? I don't think they thought of any impact it may have beyond November 24 last year.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • ravensclaw:

        28 Nov 2008 12:11:48pm

        2b
        
        When the funding goes to state Labor then yes. State Govts shouldn't be bailed out with federal welfare.
        
        Cheers

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Anthony:

      28 Nov 2008 11:48:45am

      Is that right John? How about all the "middle class" welfare splurged by the last Govt......no one can assume that those payouts were benifitting the most needy. Also, the Liberals had a bad habit of of rewarding those who were not needy and applying punitive policies to those less fortunate. The Libs were voted out as they were seen as mean and lacking any compassion. They still cannot believe that they were voted out as a result, instead thinking that supposed ecomomic prosperity was all they needed to acquire victory.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Stephen:

      28 Nov 2008 11:53:34am

      And I suppose the Libs didn't spend a lot of welfare... oh wait, middle class welfare ring a bell?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • wmc:

    28 Nov 2008 11:37:49am

    If it wasn't for the Liberals, there'd be no budget surplus.
    
    During it's early years in government, the Coalition had to undo the fiscal damage created by Labor last time it was in office.
    
    Not only that, Labor opposed budget measures that put the commonwealth's finances back into shape.
    
    In addition, Labor opposed the GST, which is now the life-blood of state government finances.
    

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • Jamie Bloomfield:

      28 Nov 2008 11:46:20am

      If it wasn't for the Liberals "surpluses", we wouldn't have had serious underfunding in education, health, infrastructure, transport, aged care, child care, work skills etc etc. They weren't "surpluses" at all - that was just a sad, sick confidence trick.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Joel B1:

        28 Nov 2008 12:03:56pm

        If that's the case (and it's not) why did Rudd essentially resort to "Me too".
        
        As in "I'll be just like the Liberals, but you'll get to feel good about indigenous Australians and CC, and lots of other feel good events" (remember 2020 talk fest?)

        Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • wmc:

        28 Nov 2008 12:04:30pm

        If there's been underfunding in these areas, perhaps the Labor state governments could at least share some of the blame.
        
        Thanks to the GST, the states have enjoyed a revenue windfall but it's been squandered (ask anyone from NSW, QLD or VIC).
        
        Labor can't manage the economy.

        Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • Jamie Bloomfield:

        28 Nov 2008 12:31:08pm

        FROM THE COALITION GOVERNMENT HANDBOOK:
        Stock Standard Coalition Response 101 - In the event that the Coalition is perceived to be at fault, blame the States.
        Stock Standard Coalition Response 102 - In the event that the States can't be blamed, cite "I didn't know", "No-one told me". First successfully used in Children Overboard Affair.
        Stock Standard Coalition Response 103 - Refer to Response 101.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Patch:

        28 Nov 2008 12:36:06pm

        wmc, if states take 'some' of the blame, then does that mean you concede that the liberals take at least some of the blame too?

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • gaz:

        28 Nov 2008 12:23:28pm

        Nearly all those categories that you mention are actually State Government responsibilities.
        
        So what is your problem? Why was this the problem of Federal Government when the funding to the states was from the largesess of the GST!

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Dave:

        28 Nov 2008 12:26:47pm

        The majority of those issues are state responsibilities. Sure Howard cut the transfer payments to the states, but the states should have planned for that possibility.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Patch:

      28 Nov 2008 12:02:55pm

      Shouldn't the resource boom get a honourable mention for the surplus, woody man?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • John D:

        28 Nov 2008 12:18:41pm

        Shouldn't the Liberals get a mention for cleaning up the wharves so we could have a mining boom?

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Patch:

        28 Nov 2008 12:33:22pm

        Interesting you would find that an episode to be proud of...

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • twobob:

      28 Nov 2008 12:06:00pm

      The previous governments surplus was not due to good management at all.
      
      Building a surplus while neglecting schools, universities and hospitals is BAD management. Spending a surplus on these things is GOOD management.
      
      They lost the last election because people had had a gutfull of their BAD management and wanted to see some GOOD things happen.
      
      GOOD things like computers in schools and hospital funding. Surely you dont think that these things should suffer just so we can have a surplus?
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • 2B:

      28 Nov 2008 12:11:03pm

      The surplus left by the liberals is pathetic. With the boom Australia had, we should be well resourced with adequately funded education, health and social programmes, up-to-date infrastructure AND had a surplus in the HUNDREDS of billions.
      
      
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Anthony:

      28 Nov 2008 12:26:00pm

      Umm... Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the GST Keatings idea? In fact, if I remember correctly, the coalition opposed the GST until Howard became PM & reintroduced the idea as a Coalition masterpiece.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Joel B1:

    28 Nov 2008 11:41:54am

    If I see one more "you were voted out" rant I'll scream.
    
    Why does Labor insist that they have the right do do whatever they like? Australia's not a totalitarian state yet, despite Rudds best attempts.

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • Jamie Bloomfield:

      28 Nov 2008 12:01:41pm

      Same could be said of the Howard era. Senate sausage factory, no debate, legislation guillotined, Telstra sold despite 70% opposition to it, participation in illegal Iraq war despite massive opposition to it ... . People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Joel B1:

        28 Nov 2008 12:20:33pm

        So you say "no debate"
        
        Where was Labor then?, just couldn't be bothered?
        
        No access to media outlets?
        
        They sat on their benches and bickered amongst themselves. That's Labor for you under Rudd.

        Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • gaz:

        28 Nov 2008 12:24:29pm

        Lib's left $22b is surplus behind.
        
        Let's see how Rudd/Swan fair when they are booted out the door. Might be the same but differnet colored ink!

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • ddur t:

        28 Nov 2008 12:24:30pm

        Labor have mass debates on a regular basic and still cant come up with a solution!

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Spooky:

      28 Nov 2008 12:22:48pm

      Yes quite funny really.
      
      The ALP finally wins an election after more then a decade, and they think it is the dawn of a new age. They think that they have finally found some ideological victory, after a long fought struggle.
      
      Imagine it like this. Two people in a room. One wants to paint it red, the other wants it blue. The room is blue for years. Then the other guy manages to get in for a few minutes, paints it red and declares ultimate victory. Very short sighted.
      
      They won by a pathetic landslide of 3%, mainly because of rising interest rates, media and Workchoices. A hiccup in 2011 could easily take them out.
      
      With the recent financial mismanagement, recession and deficit spending, they will be in a lot of trouble over the next few years. Rudd cant handle criticism, and the public will not tolerate his mistakes forever.
      
      The die hard Labor supporters will never see this. Then again, it is the swing that wins the election. Wonder if the swing voters will be impressed by what they have seen?
      
      Imagine the look on their faces if the ALP lose 2011. It will be the reality check they had to have.

      Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • Patch:

        28 Nov 2008 12:38:08pm

        Well spooky you should probably look at the opinion polls to find out whether the swing voters are impressed or not.
        
        (they are)

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Joel B1:

    28 Nov 2008 11:47:15am

    Just to follow up on that thought "you were voted OUT !"
    
    Maybe, we have an effective opposition after 11 years of Labor infighting.
    
    Is that why there's so many comments along those lines?
    
    Because no-one's used to an opposition that does what oppositions were designed to do?

    Agree (2) Alert moderator

    • Patch:

      28 Nov 2008 12:08:51pm

      Its all just partisan bollocks. You think the opposition is being effective for criticising every little thing, at times even contradicting previous criticisms to do so, because you support them. I, (and I presume Michael) dont, because I well... support labor more than I do liberal.
      
      So we'll never agree, although I will say that i dont see whats so effective about Turnbull being so visibly happy when Rudd was talking about defecit. If he is so massively against it, shouldn't he have been upset, worried or angry instead of gloating?
      
      Things like that lead me to believe that the Liberals care more about hurting labor than being an effective opposition.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Peter:

    28 Nov 2008 12:08:31pm

    Guess what Michael. One of the tennants of government is you govern for those who voted for you, as well as those that didn't.
    
    You would have been crying blue murder over anything the previous govt did that you didn't like so now you get to see the view from the other side of the fence.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• fred:

  28 Nov 2008 11:34:37am

  HHhuuuummmm, seems strange we can find $800m to bail out a promise to get computers in schools, but can not find any money to look after the older generation?
  
  Oh thats right the promise for computers was made as an election gimic and there was no mention of looking after the pensioners!!! (Synical)

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • 2b:

    28 Nov 2008 11:43:01am

    If money is not put into education, there will be no productivity from the younger generation to generate the resources needed to look after the older generation.
    
    
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Peter:

      28 Nov 2008 12:13:41pm

      Tell me how putting a computer in schools for each Yr 9-12 student is going to foster that. Go on.
      
      It won't, simple thing is that the vast majority of households have a computer, public libraries also have them and schools have some too. The internet has some good resources on it but also a lot of rubbish. Remember books? These are still useable and full of information pertinent to students. The use of the internet should be an adjunct to these, not the primary source of information.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • gaz:

      28 Nov 2008 12:33:03pm

      Yes, but if we laden our future with debt their productivity will be wasted on debt & interest repayments.
      
      Is that the future you want to leave for your kids?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Ben:

    28 Nov 2008 11:49:27am

    If I remember fred wasn't there a one off payment boost to pensioners recently in the $10.4 billion stimulus package?
    
    I'm pretty sure the component of the $10.4 billion is much larger than the $800 million you are complaining about!

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • MISSES:

      28 Nov 2008 12:04:40pm

      and there is non for higher education students... oh wait they introduce a university fee!

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• wmc:

  28 Nov 2008 11:34:41am

  As the Opposition says, this demonstrates that Labor can't manage money.
  
  They had 11 years to develop properly costed policies and couldn't do it.
  
  It's hardly a secret that the through-life cost of any IT includes maintenance, running and installation costs.
  
  Time and time again we have evidence of Labor's economic incompetence.

  Agree (2) Alert moderator

  • 2B:

    28 Nov 2008 11:59:05am

    The Liberals and their coalition handmaidens had 11 years to implement policies that boosted health, education, pensions and social justice through Australia's boom years.
    
    Instead they wasted the riches of the resources boom, while devastating the social wage and driving down workers pay-packets and small business profits.
    
    Instead of a well-resourced community and a hefty surplus, we are left with a ruin of social services, run-down infrastructure, education and training as an embarrassment for an OECD country, and a piddling $22 billion in the kitty.
    
    That it will take so much money to undo the pathetic economic mistakes of the JWH/Costello years is proof of the Liberals economic incompetence.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • wmc:

      28 Nov 2008 12:15:26pm

      Driving down workers' pay packets? Real wages increased by 17% during the Howard years, income tax fell and unemployment fell to 30 year lows.
      
      I'm not sure why you think small business profits were devastated. We've just been through a boom, where profits increased dramatically (that's where the increase in tax revenue came from).

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • gaz:

      28 Nov 2008 12:35:20pm

      Most people in the community never had it so good. Not just the the wealthy either.
      
      What do you think drove house prices up? Demand for housing even by the lower classes with increased employment and prosperity.
      
      Your character is certainly defind by the "piddly $22b". Seems to be the way Kevin has treated it as well.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Simon:

    28 Nov 2008 12:26:22pm

    I don't think the Labor party had computers last time they were in governemt, so I'm not surprised that they're not sure how to cost them.

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • Ben:

    28 Nov 2008 12:30:12pm

    I think you will find ONLY the GOVERNEMENT can use TAXPAYERS money to COST their POLICIES... so in those 11 YEARS in OPPOSITION how do you expect them to properly FUND their POLICIES (I see the current opposition are good at saying they don't have to cost any of their alternative suggestions).
    
    Lets calm down, I remember a number of defence projects that went over budget for the previous government (it happens on both sides not just Labor - and yes the previous government also claimed to be fiscally responsible).

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Anthony:

  28 Nov 2008 11:36:23am

  Pyne may become, in Keatings words, the new "idiot son". If the money is being spent on acquisitions that will improve the futre of our education system, more so the future of our kids, then how can this be a bad thing. I would drop thisd line of argument Chris, because no one is going to side with you. Maybe while your at it you can drop the high class accent also. That way you might just become a little more convincing.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Jamie Bloomfield:

    28 Nov 2008 12:05:44pm

    That's really the basic problem with the Coalition. They see Education as a burden on the public purse, as opposed to what it really is - an investment in this country's future.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Joel B1:

      28 Nov 2008 12:21:52pm

      Spin it for all it's worth Jamie,
      
      A blow-out of this nature simply indicates poor management and an inexperienced team.

      Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • Peter:

    28 Nov 2008 12:15:17pm

    So if he spoke as an okker drongo you'd place more credibility in his message? O-K.
    
    Where's the evidence that it'll improve the education system? I'm yet to see any.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• gjc:

  28 Nov 2008 11:42:29am

  Dollars that are invested in education pay off to the economy as a whole in the long term and eventually flow back to government in the future in the form of increased tax revenue - i.e., from more productive and higher-paid citizens.
  
  This is a problem the Liberal party had in government, they always treated education as a cost to the budget rather than as an investment in the future.
  
  Moreover, I'm disgusted with the Liberal Party harping on about Labor economic mismanagement causing a deficit which is clearly the results of overseas economic problems that are affecting our economy. I have rarely seen such a brazen attempt at deception and an outright failure to acknowledge widely-known facts.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Peter:

    28 Nov 2008 12:17:16pm

    Key word 'invested' as opposed to 'blown on'.
    
    Very different things, its like having someone say they invested $300 in their social education or blew $300 on alcohol and midnight munchies. Same thing packaged two different ways.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Eric:

  28 Nov 2008 11:48:30am

  The original $1000 per student should have been plenty for the states to implement the program.
  
  With bulk purchasing they could put a computer on the desk for $200 to $300, leaving $700 for maintenance and support etc. for the life of the computer. Plenty of money allowed.
  
  The less well run states saw this as an opportunity to draw some additional cash out of the federal coffers.
  
  Another $1500ish per student.
  
  They will still put the computer on the desk for $200 and invest the rest in their incompetence.
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Dave:

  28 Nov 2008 11:50:35am

  You save and spend money in good years. You spend money in bad years. Its that simple.

  Agree (1) Alert moderator

• Billy Bob Hall:

  28 Nov 2008 11:52:23am

  All together now : "Spend, Spend, Spend... On into oblivion"....
  

  Agree (1) Alert moderator

• braddles:

  28 Nov 2008 12:02:47pm

  Stuff all the political BS being spouted here. Let us look at the benefits of having well educated IT trained students. The money is an issue, but the pedagogical benefits are far greater.