Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (15:12): I rise to take note of this matter. Senator Fawcett has a fundamental flaw in his argument—that is, prior to the election, coalition speaker after coalition spokesperson committed to the Labor government's funding model, which contained a whole series of conditions to maintain funding by the states and on which the Commonwealth would pay record levels of moneys to the states. The coalition, in opposition at that time, said they would match those commitments dollar for dollar, agreement for agreement, model for model. Now that is not the position, and today we have the third effort in a week by the government to try to clarify their position, which fundamentally boils down to repudiating an election commitment. They are repudiating their commitment to the people of Australia and to the students of Australia. Furthermore, today yet another election promise was broken. Senator McKenzie: I raise a point of order under standing order 72, that after question time we move a motion to take note of answers. My understanding of Senator Carr's contribution is that he is moving a motion to take note of matters. I am still unclear as to what those matters are. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. Senator Carr is speaking to the motion moved by Senator Wong. Senator KIM CARR: Raising frivolous points of order will not help you at all. Today we have seen a further breach of promise, because the coalition prior to the election also said there would be no funding cuts from education. That was the position then, but today the Prime Minister announced that a further $1.2 billion in cuts from education would be announced straight after parliament rises this year—a further breach of promise. That is what was said, Senator Abetz, and he made the promise on 5 September 2013. He said: … there will be no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no cuts to pensions, no change to the GST … And now we have seen an announcement today that there will be a further series of budget cuts to education. What really interests me is that, prior to the election, the government of Western Australia was offered an extra $920 million funding by the Labor government. That offer was rejected by the Premier of Western Australia. Why is it that the total amount of money now being put to the non-signatory states today is only $1.2 billion? One can only presume the commitments that the Premier of Western Australia made at the time, that he would get more money from an Abbott government than he would from a Labor government, have not been borne out. My understanding is that the offer from Mr Abbott is now substantially less than $920 million. You should ask yourself a simple question: why is it that the government of Western Australia would sign up, even in principle, to a proposition that would deprive the state of Western Australia of so much money? One has to bear in mind that, clearly, it is part of the chicanery and the deception that is going on and part of the deceitful comments of the Prime Minister with regard to his cynical political manoeuvres on schools funding—a commitment made prior to the election that they could of course be on a unity ticket with Labor, a commitment made that there would be the same funding arrangements and the same funding models presented by Labor and that, if you voted Labor or Liberal, you would get the same deal on schools. Of course, that is clearly not the case, to the point where we are now seeing three separate plans announced inside a week. Senator Conroy: Three? Senator KIM CARR: Three separate plans inside a week, when we are getting coalition education minister after coalition education minister in Victoria and New South Wales and Labor ministers in South Australia and Tasmania saying they want to see the agreements they have struck honoured. But you are not getting that from this government. Now we have a position from Senator Abetz where he says there is no need for schools to lose money. What a rock-solid commitment that is! No need! We know the answer and the minister in New South Wales has belled the cat. The cuts will be to government schools and that is the result of the sectarian policies that the government is seeking to reintroduce into the education debate in this country. But I come back to a simple proposition: why is it that the Western Australia Premier rejected $920 million from the Commonwealth Labor government, yet he accepts a far less amount from the Liberal government under Tony Abbott? Why is it? What is the deal? What is the special arrangement? And what does it mean for the Queensland government? Similar sorts of offers have been made to them and repudiated by them. What does it mean for the Northern Territory government, with similar sets of arrangements offered by Labor, rejected by conservative premiers and chief ministers? (Time expired)