Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister in the Senate, Senator Brandis. In response to the education package announced by the Prime Minister and Minister Birmingham a week ago, Assistant Minister Seselja last night told Catholic parents the package would have pretty significant negative consequences for the ACT. He said he shared parents' significant concern about the government's policy. He advised he had put that case very strongly to Minister Birmingham and was prepared to publicly disassociate himself from the minister's policy and repudiated the treatment of Catholic schools. Has the Prime Minister spoken to Assistant Minister Seselja about his conduct?

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

Senator Sterle, I see you are relying on some press reports of remarks attributed to Senator Seselja. I do not know and I am not in a position to tell you what conversation Senator Seselja and the Prime Minister may or may not have had, but I can tell you this, Senator Sterle: you should have been listening to my friend Senator Birmingham when he answered questions from your side of the chamber, because the school-funding package that Senator Birmingham announced last week as part of the 2017-18 budget will increase school funding over the next decade by $18.6 billion.

As Mr David Gonski himself has said, in the words that Senator Birmingham quoted, it will return to the principles of needs-based funding that he embraced and espoused in his 2011 review but which the former Labor government never implemented but left the system in a complete mess with no fewer than 27 different funding deals.

The package that Senator Birmingham announced last week will treat all students fairly. It is based entirely on the principle—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order, on my left! Senator Gallagher, on a point of order?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order goes to relevance. The senator has taken one minute 30 to get to this point, but he has not got to the question, which was: has the Prime Minister spoken to the assistant minister about his conduct? That is the question that is before the senator.

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

The minister did answer that directly by saying he is not aware of any conversations he may or may not have had with Senator Birmingham, so the minister was relevant.

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

Senator Sterle, what is the problem the Labor Party has with the idea that all Australian students should be treated fairly? Why does the Labor Party have a problem with the principle that you used to espouse, though never gave effect to, that school funding should be needs based? Why do you have a problem, as you appear to have, with the principle that school funding should be transparent? And why do you have a problem, as you appear to have, with the principle that there should be consistency of treatment across the country? (Time expired)

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

Senator Sterle, a supplementary question?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to refer to the Cabinet handbook, which states:

…ministers cannot dissociate themselves from, or repudiate the decisions of their Cabinet colleagues unless they resign…

Has Assistant Minister Seselja advised the Prime Minister of his intention to resign, and, if not, will the Prime Minister sack him?

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

Senator Sterle, as I said in answer to your primary question, I am not aware of what conversations may have occurred between the Prime Minister and one of my colleagues, but I am aware of the great virtues of the school funding package that was announced by Senator Birmingham last week. You refer, in your primary question, Senator Sterle, to the Catholic system—the Catholic system of which I myself am a product, I might say, and that I care about a great deal. The increase in funding of schools across the Catholic system nationally will be 3.6 per cent. How, Senator Sterle, you can possibly say that an—

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

A point of order, Senator Cameron?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order is on relevance. The question went clearly to this: has Assistant Minister Seselja advised the Prime Minister of his intention to resign; if not, will the Prime Minister sack him? You should draw the minister's attention to the question.

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

Similar to my response to Senator Gallagher's point of order, the minister did say that he is unaware of conversations that may have taken place between Assistant Minister Seselja and the Prime Minister, so he has certainly answered that part of the question.

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

So, Senator Sterle, the Catholic system will be one of the beneficiaries of the funding announcement made by Senator Birmingham last week, with an average increase of 3.6 per cent funding of Catholic schools over the next four years.

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

Senator Sterle, a final supplementary question?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given this is not the first time Assistant Minister Seselja has breached cabinet solidarity and criticised his own government's policies, isn't the Prime Minister's failure to sack his dissident minister another example of the Prime Minister's weakness and of the control exerted over him by the right of his party?

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

Senator Sterle, it is a shame. At the end of every question you ask, you always come back to trying to make—never successfully, I am sorry to say—a cheap political point. We are not interested in the insiders games. We are not interested in the political gossip. We are not interested in someone who has obviously watched way too many episodes of The West Wing in his life. What we are interested in is policy outcomes. If, for one moment, you and your Labor colleagues could interest yourselves in a policy, these are the features of a policy—a policy based upon the principle of need, a policy based upon the principle of equality, a policy based upon the principle of consistency of treatment. So, it does not matter where you go to school, right across Australia, by the end of this program, over a 10-year period, there will be precise equality of treatment— (Time expired)