Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The other words I would use would be 'sophistry' and 'mendacity'. I think that sums up the Labor Party's tactics in this debate.

In my electorate of Hughes in this current year the federal government is contributing $99,103,000. Next year there will be an increase of 4.2 per cent, to $103,267,000. The schools in my electorate, similarly to those in every electorate around the country, will be receiving an extra $4,164,000—not quite as much as the member for Lindsay, who is enjoying a greater increase, and who is going to come in and vote against this increase, but an increase.

The Catholic schools have made a bit of an issue about the cuts. Next year St John Bosco College will receive an extra $248,000. St Patrick's College will receive an extra $318,700. Aquinas Catholic College will receive an extra $279,300. When it comes to per-student increases, outside of the four special schools—the Cook School, the original boys' school down at Engadine, Bates Drive School and Minerva School—the school that will get the biggest increase is St John's Bosco Catholic College in Engadine. They will receive an increase of $305 per student next year. This is similar. My electorate is not special. This is happening across the nation. Every school is getting more money on top of the 40 per cent more that this government is giving over and above the previous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments.

The Labor Party like to use David Gonski's name and to quote David Gonski. What has no less than David Gonski said about these changes? He said:

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

The Labor Party come in here and they quote Gonski's name time after time after time. I hope that they will quote that, because David Gonski is telling the truth when he says there is additional funding, unlike members of the Labor Party. What did Ken Boston, one of the original authors of the Gonski report, have to say about it? He said:

In the run-up to the 2013 election, prime minister Kevin Rudd and education minister Bill Shorten hawked this corruption of the Gonski report around the country, doing deals with premiers, bishops and the various education lobbies. These bilateral negotiations were not a public and open process, as would have been achieved by the National Schools Resourcing Body; they dragged on for twenty-one months up to the September 2013 election; and they led to a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation …

He said that what Labor implemented:

… was not what the Gonski review recommended. It was not sector-blind, needs-based funding. It continued to discriminate between government and non-government schools.

Those are the words of one of the original authors of the Gonski report.

There are many speakers listed on this debate. I would hope that they will have greater respect for the citizens, the constituents and the school students in their electorates. It would be outrageous if Labor member after Labor member walked into this chamber and created the false impression that funding in their schools was being cut when the absolute opposite is the truth—their schools are getting more money. We can have our debates and we can argue intensely across the chamber, but what we should not do is adopt such a low act at to mislead students and their parents and tell them that there are cuts when the facts are that they are getting more money.

We have seen that results in our schools are not where we want them to be.

Ms O'Toole interjecting—

See this speech in context