Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Why does the Prime Minister refuse to acknowledge that his school plan represents a $22 billion cut over 10 years, when that is exactly what his government's own briefing document states?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member knows full well that the government of which she was part—the Labor government—had no means, no capacity—

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Isaacs is warned.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and no plan to fund the so-called $22 billion. It mocked Australian students. It absolutely distorted and, in Ken Boston's words, corrupted the David Gonski recommendations, because it was not consistent, it was not needs based—it was not fair. It was not one, single, funding model across Australia. It was not consistent in any way at all. It was 27 separate deals, incomprehensible to those who knew the terms of them and of course completely obscure to everybody else, to whom they were not disclosed.

The reality is the Labor Party betrayed the principles of the review David Gonski chaired. They betrayed Australian students, they betrayed equity and they betrayed their pledge—their alleged commitment—to needs based funding. The honourable member knows full well that their schools policy was all about politics and nothing about students. She stood up a moment ago and raised a school, St Clair High School, which over the decade will receive $7½ million of additional funding under our plan. That is a commitment.

What we have demonstrated is that you can have an affordable, consistent, national, needs based school-funding model which recognises the different responsibility of the federal government to the non-government sector, where we are the majority funder, as opposed to the government sector, where we are the minority funder. It recognises those. It is fair, it is transparent, it is needs based, it is consistent and it is national. Honourable members opposite should support it.