SCHOOL COMPUTERS

Mr PISONI (Unley) (15:22): My question is to the Minister for Education and Children's Services. Does the Treasurer have a projected figure from the minister for the installation, rewiring, maintenance, airconditioning, electricity, teacher IT training and associated costs for the 62 South Australian high schools accepted in the federal Labor government's first round of the education revolution?

Federal minister Gillard has made it clear that, despite election promises implying a computer for every student, the now revised goal ratio of 1:2 will not include federal funding for the most significant infrastructure and implementation costs (now estimated to be up to $3 billion) associated with the entire program. This shortfall will have to be made up out of the state budget or directly from the pockets of parents and students through increased school fees.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Treasurer, Minister for Industry and Trade, Minister for Federal/State Relations) (15:24): Hang on, you asked a question—

Mr Pisoni: Has she worked it out? Has she told you?

The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer has the call.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Now that we are quiet, I will continue. It has not been lost on state treasurers around the nation that, with some of the election promises of the federal Labor government, there may be a cost to the states. As diligent and aware treasurers, we have raised this matter with the federal government because, in what is now the true spirit of ending the blame game and of cooperation, we have pointed out to the federal government that there are costs associated with some of their promises. As members opposite would be aware, the current situation is that a new arrangement is being put in place for SPPs—that is, for those not aware, special purpose payments. There will also be—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: The FAGs have gone, haven't they?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: The FAGs have gone; SPPs are still around. However, we are working with the commonwealth on the new SPP arrangements. As to what those arrangements will be, with an issue such as the cost of implementing federal government policies, we are working it through with the commonwealth. Quite appropriately, the Education Department will be doing its cost assessment, but we have not yet had a sign-off with the commonwealth as to who will be paying for what.

Mr Pisoni: Have you ruled out parents paying?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I do not think we have ever intended for parents to pay. In all seriousness, this is—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Unley will come to order.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Yes; I rule out parents paying for it, because this is a federal government—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Unley is warned.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: This is a federal government policy, and the education department will be doing its bit in terms of participating in that program. What, if any, costs will be borne by the states is being worked out between state Treasurers and the federal Treasurer, and we will resolve that matter in the months ahead.

The SPEAKER: Just before I call the member for Unley, I will return to the member for MacKillop's question. I ruled the question out of order on the grounds that the information he was seeking was otherwise readily available. For the purposes of the house, that is on page 303 of Erskine May, and members can look at that reference.

The member for MacKillop made the point to me that not all donations are required to be disclosed, and I accept that point. However, the point remains—and I refer to page 349 of Erskine May:

The Speaker has ruled that the question may not be asked which deals with the action of a minister for which he is not responsible to the parliament.

I do rule that donations to a political party are not the responsibility of a minister: they are administered by the political party and, quite rightly, the minister is not involved in collating information about donations. I am in the unusual position, given the keenness of the Minister for Transport to answer it, of perhaps having a dissent motion on my ruling carried with the support of the government. However, until that unhappy event, and on the basis that the minister is not responsible to the house for political donations made to the political party of which that minister is a member, I rule the question out of order.

Mrs REDMOND: I seek some clarification, Mr Speaker.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: I would like clarification as to what you have just said, sir, namely, whether that means that the original ruling upon which the question from the member for Davenport was then based has now been replaced by a different ruling on your behalf for ruling the member for MacKillop's question out of order.

The SPEAKER: Yes; that is correct. I was wrong. The information that the member for MacKillop sought was not readily available. I erred, and I humbly apologise to the house for that; however, I do—

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Thank you. I rule that the question is out of order on the ground that the minister is not responsible to the house.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I have a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Is the house to take from your ruling that, under your speakership, you are directing that no questions will be asked henceforth of this Labor government about political donations, or the influence that those political donations may have on their roles as ministers or in the carrying out of their duties? Is the direction from you that the house is not to discuss such matters?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition is best advised, in seeking such clarification, to approach the chair or come to see me in my office: I am happy to speak to him at any time. No, that is not my ruling. That is not what I am saying at all. The member for MacKillop's question was very specific and asked for information from the minister about donations to the Australian Labor Party, and about how much they were. I have ruled that he is not responsible to the house for that.

As to the other questions that the opposition have asked today, which have been about the attendance of ministers at fundraisers and things like that and whether donations have had any effect on a minister's decision making, of course those questions are in order and of course ministers are answerable to the house for those sorts of things. I am simply ruling that the specific question of the member for MacKillop about the level of donations was out of order.