Mr President, my question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer the minister to the school funding promise made by the Prime Minister on 2 August when he said, 'We will make sure that no school is worse off.' Will the Prime Minister keep his promise?

Mr President, there is no need for any school to be worse off under our funding model. We have said time and time again that we believe in parent power rather than Canberra control. We said parent power rather than Canberra control. What we will be doing with this new funding—and might I add replacing funding that the then Minister for Education, Mr Shorten, ripped out of the funding envelope with the connivance of the then minister for finance, who has been similarly rewarded by a leadership position in this place. So the two leaders of the Australian Labor Party were the people who raided the Gonski envelope of $1.2 billion. Where did the money go? It was 'gone-ski', wasn't it, courtesy of Mr Shorten's shortfall and Senator Wong not quite getting her figures right in relation to the matter of education. It will ultimately be for the individual states and territories to determine how the funny—

how the money is to be allocated. Look, it was a Freudian slip because under Labor it was funny money. It was $1.2 billion funny money short. Mr Pyne and Mr Abbott, despite the financial circumstances and constraints that we face, have been able to find a way forward to ensure that students in Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory are not disadvantaged in circumstances that Senator Collins herself was willing to countenance in an interjection earlier in this question time.

Those states weren't offered the money; they declined.

They were offered the money. Mr President, we are hearing it again! And because they did not accept it, Labor denied them the money and withdrew the 1.2 billion— (Time expired)

Opposition senators interjecting—

Government senators interjecting—

Order on both sides! The time to debate the question is after question time.

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note the minister refused to repeat the Prime Minister's promise, so I give him an opportunity. I refer him to the Prime Minister's further claim on 2 August: 'We want to end the uncertainty by guaranteeing that no school will be worse off.' Will the Prime Minister keep this promise?

Mr President, the minister—or former minister—for finance is somewhat slow. What we indicated, very clearly, is that no school need be worse off given our funding. But because the states are responsible for the allocation of moneys—and just before the chorus gets too excited—

New words!

be very careful, because under the models already adopted in part in New South Wales and other states you might actually find that some schools are worse off, courtesy of various state government decisions. What we are saying is: the money is available and, under the terms and agreements that were entered into, those circumstances will continue unless the states agree, of course, to change. (Time expired)

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Is the Prime Minister going to keep the school funding promises he actually made or the promise he now wants to pretend he made? Is the promise to guarantee no school will be worse off, or is the new promise—to cover a broken promise—that there is no need for a school to be worse off under your broken system?

Those of the 'there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead' party hardly come into this debate with any credibility when it comes to honouring promises to the Australian people. The leader of the opposition can turn her chair around because we know well and truly who was the architect of that disastrous Labor policy.

Order! I have not given you the call, Senator Moore, for one reason. When there is silence I will give you the call.

Mr President, I rise on a point of order relating to relevance. It was a specific question about a promise. We are waiting to hear that answer.

There is no point of order at this stage. I believe the minister is addressing the question. The minister still has 36 seconds remaining.

I can understand the Labor Party's sensitivity in relation to the 'no carbon tax' promise because that was the issue on which they lost the last election, and they are still going to stand in the way of its repeal in this place, in the event that media stories are correct.

Coming to the specific issue of education, can I indicate to the honourable senator and leader of the opposition that we are a party—I have said this before and I will continue to say it—that has every intention of keeping our promises. (Time expired)