Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. Within days of the Prime Minister and Minister Birmingham announcing the so-called Gonski 2.0 package, Deputy Prime Minister Joyce indicated there would be tweaking, and the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer, Mr Sukkar, suggested the government would have to modify its plans to ensure schools were satisfied. What changes does the government intend to make to save its unravelling education package, announced only a short week ago?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Kitching, honestly! Senator Birmingham announced last week the most fundamental reform of school funding in Australia that we have seen in this nation for many decades. It is a comprehensive package. It restores what your government failed ever to comply with, and that is the principles of the 2011 Gonski report, as Mr David Gonski himself said last week and as Senator Birmingham quoted him in his answer to an earlier question. Senator Kitching, as I said to your colleague Senator Sterle, what is the Labor Party's problem with the principle of equity in funding?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Pause the clock. Senator Wong, a point of order.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point is on direct relevance. One question: what changes does the government intend to make to save its unravelling education package announced only week ago? We have inconsistent quotes from members of the cabinet as to whether or not the package is up for changes. I invite the Leader of the Government in the Senate to be very clear about what the government's position actually is.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will remind the Attorney-General of the question.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Mr President, I thought I had dealt with that in my opening words. But the package, as announced by Senator Birmingham, is the package. It is a complete and comprehensive package, and we are not proposing to make changes to the package. The package is a complete and self-sufficient package, and it has the support of every member of the government. I said a moment ago that this package has been endorsed by Mr Gonski, and I was, by interjection, contradicted by your colleague Senator Jacinta Collins. Let me read you what Mr Gonski had to say at his media conference last week:

… I'm very pleased to hear that the Turnbull Government has accepted the fundamental recommendations of our 2011 report—

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Wait for it, Senator Collins—

and particularly regarding a needs-based situation.

… I'm very pleased that there is substantial additional money, even over indexation and in the foreseeable future.

Now, Senator Collins, I know you people in the Labor Party find this very—(Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Kitching, a supplementary question?

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On Sunday, Treasurer Morison said that there would be no changes to the package announced by the Prime Minister and Minister Birmingham last Tuesday. Who is right? Is it the Treasurer or the Deputy Prime Minister and Assistant Treasurer?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are both right because they are not saying anything different. Senator Kitching, I know people in the Australian Labor Party find it very hard to swallow, but the fact is that you commissioned Mr David Gonski, a most highly respected Australian, to conduct a review. You traded upon his name and reputation, and in his name and reputation you then ushered forth a series of policies that bore little or no resemblance to the principles of his report. You left a hodgepodge of 27 inconsistent special funding deals. I cannot tell you how pleased and relieved Mr Gonski was, as he was last week, when he was able to stand shoulder to shoulder with a Prime Minister and an education minister who respected the integrity and the principles of his report. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Kitching, a final supplementary question?

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that government ministers are divided as to whether or not the Gonski 2.0 package should be modified, will the Prime Minister accept the advice of former Prime Minister Abbott, who has predicted that the package could be dumped altogether?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Kitching, I am not going to be a commentator on what Mr Abbott may have to say from time to time. He is perfectly entitled to his view. Senator Kitching, the fact is that, when Senator Birmingham made the announcement he made last week, that was a historic day in the history of Australian education, because, as a result of that announcement, the principles that Mr Gonski espoused have been reclaimed. I know you find it difficult to deal with, but they have been reclaimed by the Turnbull government and by a much better education minister than any education minister the Labor Party, during the Gillard and Rudd governments, ever put into the portfolio. And, as a result, there will be needs-based funding.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Mr President: standing order 193(3).

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would you like me to pause and read the standing order, or can you assist me, Senator Kitching? You need to provide me with a bit of clarity about what your point of order is.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Standing order 193(3) refers to imputations. Senator Brandis is imputing that former Labor education ministers were not good, when, in fact, Mr President, Senator Brandis continues to ignore the very facts.

Government senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my right! Senator Kitching, you can continue.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would just point out, Mr President, that Senator Brandis has once again used, and continues to use, this debate to lie. He knows very well what has happened in his own party—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Kitching, you will need to withdraw that remark in relation to Senator Brandis. I invite you to withdraw that remark about Senator Brandis.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will withdraw.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. And, in relation to your point of order under 193(3), Senator Brandis did not extend the remarks about former Labor ministers in any way, shape or form that drew my attention to it being more harsh than other comments that are made from senators across this chamber from time to time. Senator Brandis is in order. I thank you for your point of order, Senator Kitching, but Senator Brandis is in order.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Kitching, there is no imputation, there is no implication, there is no innuendo; there is a flat-out statement of fact. Senator Simon Birmingham is a much better minister for education than any Labor minister for education in living— (Time expired)