School Computers

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [12.58 p.m.]: On behalf of the schools, teachers, students and parents in the electorate of Tamworth, I express concern as to how the Federal Government's proposal to provide every student in years 9 to 12 with access to a reasonably new computer will be implemented in New South Wales. At the Australian Labor Party's Federal election launch in Brisbane last year, Kevin Rudd said that this "groundbreaking reform" would make every secondary school in Australia a "digital school". It would seem, however, that the manner in which the rollout is being administered in New South Wales will prevent this goal being reached. On 26 March 2008 the Australian reported concerns from the States that the $1 billion price tag represents just one-quarter of the cost of this rollout. It said that State leaders told the Commonwealth they face huge flow-on costs from the computer policy in providing cabling, power, security and Internet connectivity.

To compound the problem, it seems the Federal Government's promise to connect fast broadband to classrooms will take a lot longer to achieve than the aim of June this year. It also seems that the program is being introduced without proper planning. As all members know, this will inevitably lead to a waste of taxpayer dollars. It is imperative that our schools be allowed to use the funding in the way that best suits their individual requirements. A one-size-fits-all approach would be a disaster. A matter of great concern is an official email that was sent to schools instructing that they can only purchase laptops and they must use the department's contract, paying about $1,000 each for the computers. It has been suggested to me that the laptops will need to work through a wireless system.

To the best of my knowledge, no such system is yet in place. Worse still, students would have access to only a paltry 54 megabytes per second. That is half the capability of desktops plugged in to an existing network. Further, the actual speed of a wireless service will decrease considerably should additional laptops be connected to the system, meaning students will have an even slower and more cumbersome Internet experience. While considering these negatives, we should also consider price comparisons—$1,000 for contracted laptops as opposed to perfectly suitable desktops that are available for about $650 each. If, for example, a school needs 150 new computers to deliver the desired provision ratio, it can apply to the Federal authorities for $150,000 in funding. That means that 150 laptops under contract at $1,000 each will consume the entire $150,000. Conversely, 150 desktops at $650 each equates to $97,500, leaving $52,500 to spend on the vital infrastructure required for them to be operational. Laptops can be purchased also, if required.

It has been suggested that the decision to instruct schools that only laptops can be purchased may be driven by a desire for students to take them home at night to charge them, thus transferring the electricity charges from schools to parents. A number of other serious long-term problems arise in relation to the security and operation of laptop computers that are constantly on the move between students, with laptops being put at risk and having a shorter operating life than school-based desktops. How many laptops will be damaged, lost, stolen or left at home? If two students share a computer, who takes it home and is one student disadvantaged should it be left at home or a student is sick? It also begs the question: How many of these computers will be still available for use 12 months down the track? On the other hand, a school that retains the laptops on site faces the dilemma of how and where 150 laptops, or more, are to be charged every night, who will be responsible for the task, and how the laptops will be redistributed to students on a daily basis. I fail to see how an instruction to purchase only contracted $1,000 laptops can deliver the best outcomes for students or value for taxpayers' dollars. I have grave fears that many will end up unused and in storage.

I am aware that the President of the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations of New South Wales has supported the Department of Education and Training proposal. They believe the laptops will move with the students from lesson to lesson. In high school, the composition of classes changes up to six times a day because of electives and differing academic levels. How will it be determined who gets the machine? It is a logistical nightmare. Every school should be able to accept the funds on offer and determine its own implementation plan. Schools should not be saddled with an unworkable and hastily cobbled together, Government-imposed system. Each school should decide the appropriate ratio of laptops to desktops and then be able to buy at the best price possible to maximize the funds, investing the remaining money in hardware and infrastructure.

All the schools in my electorate—be they central schools or the largest of our high schools—have different requirements. The school staff and school community are much better equipped to deliver the best outcome for their individual campuses than is any centralised controlling body. The Federal Government has promised a $1 billion investment in our children's education. We must make sure that it is spent in the wisest possible manner. On behalf of all students and teachers from the electorate of Tamworth, we must make sure this process is delivered properly. We do not want to ask in a few months time, "Where did the money go?"

Ms TANYA GADIEL (Parramatta—Parliamentary Secretary) [1.03 p.m.]: I thank the member for Tamworth for his contribution today. I note that during the week the member asked the Premier a question on this issue, and the Premier provided him with a thorough response.

Question—That private members' statements be noted—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Private members' statements noted.


1