Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. On polling day for the 2013 election, Liberal candidates displayed a corflute in blue and white that declared, 'Liberals will match Labor's school funding dollar for dollar.' Can the minister confirm his plan as confirmed in the budget actually represents a $22 billion cut compared to Labor's plan?

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

Thank you for that question, Senator Bilyk. The answer is: it absolutely does not. What the government is planning to do by adopting the principles of the Gonski report, which you abandoned and never implemented, is to increase school funding on a needs basis by $18.6 billion over 10 years, which is an increase—let me say it again: an increase. It is the largest investment, by far, that any Australian government has ever made in Australian schools—ever.

Senator Bilyk, an $18.6 billion increase is not a $22 billion cut. I tried to explain this to you yesterday, but let me have another go. This is Labor Party economics for you: you dream up a pie-in-the-sky number, you do not suggest any way in which that pie-in-the-sky number can be funded, you then subtract an $18.6 billion increase from your pie-in-the-sky number and you come up with a nonsense figure. That is not a cut, Senator Bilyk. An $18.6 billion increase in funding is not a cut.

Not only are we proud to have invested $18.6 billion extra in Australian schools; we are also pleased that we have embraced, for the first time by any Australian government, the equity principle of the Gonski report. Senator Bilyk, just like you do with the NDIS, it is all very well to engage in the rhetoric, but you have to show where the money is coming from to pay for it, and we have done so.

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

Senator Bilyk, a supplementary question?

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My first supplementary question is: can the minister explain to Australians how it is fair that, even after a decade, 85 per cent of public schools will not reach the schooling resource standard, while the government can still find a spare $65.4 billion for big business?

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

Senator Bilyk, I am afraid you are conflating two entirely different things, because both of these measures are fairness measures and both of them will have good social effects. Let me explain this to you, Senator Bilyk. As I tried to explain to your colleague Senator Wong, the $65 billion enterprise tax plan will ensure that Australian businesses have more money to employ more people and to pay the people they employ better wages. That is the way that you grow the economy. I should not have to make this point to you, Senator Bilyk, because your leader, Mr Shorten, some years ago made the very same argument—which he has now conveniently forgotten about. Meanwhile, in another area of social policy, schools policy, we are increasing the Commonwealth's contribution over 10 years by $18.6 billion and, unlike you, we can point to where the money is coming from.

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

Senator Bilyk, a supplementary question?

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My further supplementary question is: does the minister agree with Catholic Education Melbourne, which says that his education package is 'a direct attack on parent choice' and 'means schools face the grim reality of significantly raising fees or cutting programs'?

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

If a spokesman has said that, no, I do not agree with it and the reason that I do not agree with it is that it is wrong. Let me tell you what the actual figures are. There will be an increase of funding for schools of 4.1 per cent per year from next year to 2027. That annual increase of 4.1 per cent every year over 10 years will represent an increase in Commonwealth funding of 5.1 per cent per year every year to public schools, an increase of 3.5 per cent per year every year for Catholic schools and an increase of 4.1 per cent per year every year to independent schools. So every component of the sector receives a substantial increase in current levels of funding every year for 10 years. (Time expired)

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.