As appears to be becoming the norm for Conservative political parties the world over, and in Australia, they have developed a blueprint for winning elections from Opposition which involves an amalgam of amorphous concepts, Fuzzy Math, Truthiness, Catch Phrases, Principled Words that look good on a backdrop and every marketing trick in the book. Or is that, every marketing trick that they can fit into a glossy pamphlet?
Thus with Tony Abbott’s Coalition we have the amorphous concepts of a government of ‘chaos and dysfunction, in disarray’. A position not actually borne out by the facts of a government who, despite instability, which is different, have governed well and in an orderly fashion over the last 3 years.
Tony Abbott likes to contrast that with his team, an Opposition ‘ready to govern’ with a ‘stable front bench’. Whether in reality that is a good thing is open to question, even as he tries to portray it as such, as you could also portray it as a stultified and sclerotic potential administration, unable or afraid to move on poor performers from their spots where they have become araldited to the Shadow Front Bench.
Anyway, as we all know, Abbott is simply trying to make the best of a bad situation, unable as he is, to move them, because if he does he invokes the agreement he made with Gary Gray as Special Minister of State which would see a cut in resources allocated to the Opposition.
Still, you can’t say that Tony Abbott doesn’t try to make every post a winner.
Also, the ‘Fuzzy Math’ is manifested in the Coalition’s position to dismiss the validity of Treasury estimates of anything but to laud the ability of their ‘Commission of Audit’, which would occur after an election of an Abbott government, to come up with the correct figures, in contrast to Treasury’s numbers, and upon which they would rely instead. Just as the Coalition attempted to do in the 2010 election when they rubbished Treasury Costings of their policies and relied instead on the arithmetic of their chosen firm of WA Accountants (with links to the Liberal Party). Figures which were subsequently proven to be without solid foundation, and more than a bit fuzzy.
The Catch Phrases, in lieu of cogent and accurate criticism of government policies, we can all come up with many examples of from the Abbott Opposition over the last 3 years. ‘Great Big New Tax’ being just one.
The ‘Principled Words that look good on a backdrop’, which the Opposition have chosen to background Abbott with this go around are, ‘Hope. Reward. Opportunity. Real Solutions and The 5 Pillar Economy’. All well and good, and what any citizen would aspire to for their country and to be manifest as aspirations for a government. Though I can see why the Coalition have opted for 5 Pillars, when usually 4 pillars are enough to support a structure, 5 are better!
However, all of that is not what this post is actually about. Instead I am wanting to focus on the ‘Truthiness’ aspect as it relates to the Coalition’s policy platform relating to Education.
Stephen Jones, MP pointed out in a Tweet the other day this paragraph from the Coalition’s ‘Real Solutions’ booklet which went to their Education policy:
I had to wonder, what does that mean in reality? Because the Coalition aren’t telling us straight up. So I went to the Liberal Party Platform document to try and flesh out the motherhood statement in the pamphlet with some more concrete facts. Ever hopeful that I am of the Coalition having an Education policy, which has just been hidden away somewhere.
Here it is:
Federal Platform
The Liberal Party of Australia
THE LIBERAL WAY
CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR
AUSTRALIANS
Liberals believe in a society in which all children have the opportunity
to develop their potential and all people have the opportunity to
achieve.
The education system is fundamental to achieving this goal, but
education goes beyond schools to include family and community.
Material reward, cultural enrichment and personal fulfilment may be
derived from an effective education system that seeks to overcome
limitations imposed by disadvantage and maximises opportunities
for all.
Liberals are committed to the widest possible freedom of choice
in education. The right to choose should not be just a privilege for
the rich.
In creating opportunities for Australians, Liberals will:
•
recognize the importance of families and good parenting to children
in policies that protect and strengthen the family;
•
ensure the widest possible freedom in choice in education,
promoted by diversity of systems and schools;
•
ensure that all children have access to the best possible education,
irrespective of sex, race, religion, socioeconomic background or
place of residence;
•
establish standards of literacy and numeracy, and accountability
mechanisms for their achievement;
•
help students overcome limitations and disadvantages by fostering
choice in education, accommodating diversity in needs and
aspirations, and encouraging excellence;
•
decentralise the control and administration of schooling
by empowering local systems and respecting school
communities;
•
promote awareness of the need for adults to upgrade their
education and provide appropriate opportunities for doing so;
LIBERAL PARTY OF AUSTRALIA
16
•
offer financial assistance where appropriate so that educational
needs can be met;
•
oppose discrimination based on irrelevant criteria;
•
implement economic policies that generate employment
opportunities;
•
assist migrants to integrate and find appropriate employment;
•
provide for the needs of special groups in the community,
including the disabled, the aged, indigenous Australians and
remote communities; and
•
recognise that gifted and talented children often have special
educational needs, which must be met if their potential is to be
realized.
Nope, nothing there that tells us exactly what the Coalition would do as far as their approach to educating our children and grandchildren goes. In fact, if you read it you would have to say that their aspirations sound very much like those outlined in the Gonski Report. ‘Provide for the needs of special groups in the community….’ Also, to ‘offer financial assistance where appropriate so that educational needs can be met’, sounds very much like they would provide something like the ‘School Kids Bonus’, which they have pledged to rescind.
Anyway, the line which interests me the most, and which is, yet again, left deliberately vague as to it’s implementation on the ground, is:
decentralise the control and administration of schooling
by empowering local systems and respecting school
communities
So, in the interests of informing ourselves just what this new system of educating our kids might actually look like, which the Coalition are keeping under wraps for the most part, possibly until after the election, we’ll have to go to those government’s school systems that have already embarked upon similar paths to see what they look like.
From the research I have done there may be a few options for paths that the Coalition may go down. They are paths that other countries with Tory governments have taken as they have turned over what we know as Public Education to Private Education Services providers. Which can also encompass ’empowering local systems’, or franchises, when you think about it.
Plus, I will look at those Coalition State governments that the federal Coalition are looking to for inspiration.
1. Vouchers.
On ABC24’s ‘The Drum’ last Monday, a spirited discussion about what may be the specifics of the Coalition’s plans for Education policy, occurred between the IPA’s, Tim Wilson, and actor and friend of Kevin Rudd, Rhys Muldoon. The Privatisation of Public Schools was discussed, based upon the paragraph in the ‘Real Solution’ pamphlet that I have highlighted above, and Wilson, often a public cipher for the Coalition’s private musings, was more inclined to think that the introduction of Education Vouchers for each student would be the best way to go and that any group, in any community, who would wish to start up a school, should be able to do so.
So, what is the Voucher system and how does it work? What are it’s pros and cons?
School Vouchers are a certificate given by the State Government that allows parents to take their child’s portion of that State’s per pupil education spending and apply it to the school of their choice (Private, virtual, or home) instead of the Public School district their child resides in.
What are the advantages of School Vouchers?
School Vouchers give parents who would not otherwise be able to afford it some choice in their child’s education. Public Education is the cheapest form of education and many simply cannot afford other choices such as Private Schools. The voucher system gives them the opportunity for this type of choice.
Another advantage is that all taxpayers pay for Public School funding regardless of type of school their child attends. So a parent, who has a child in the Private School system, is paying for the Public School system as well. This eliminates that double payment. Proponents also argue that School Vouchers would provide more competition across schools, which would in turn improve the quality of education for all students.
What are the disadvantages of School Vouchers?
The opportunity to undermine the Public Education system is presented with the School Voucher program. Public School enrollment and funding would take a huge hit. Essentially opponents of School Vouchers say that the monies being taken away from Public Schools through the voucher program would not be replaced and it would be difficult to be competitive without adequate funding.
It can also be argued that Private Schools, many who control enrollment, will not have enough room to meet the potential demand, thus having to turn down students who wish to attend their school. Much as they would love to, Private Schools would not be able to endlessly expand. Opponents also argue that parents who take the vouchers to home school their child may not be spending it properly on their child’s education.
I remember that when Brendan Nelson was John Howard’s Education Minister, he and Howard began to make sotto voce comments about a School Voucher program. Then Howard lost the 2007 election and the option has not been publicly spoken about by the Coalition since. Only the IPA.
For a more comprehensive explanation of the Voucher System and a comparison with other alternatives, you may like to read this: http://www.wested.org/policy/pubs/full_text/pb_ft_voucher.pdf
It may be an American information sheet, but so much in Education Theory these days is global and shared.
2. Independent Public Schools
Fortuitously for me, over the last week, Christopher Pyne, Shadow Education Minister for the Coalition, has fleshed out what will be the policy that they will take to the election. By reading this informative article by Maralyn Parker in The Daily Telegraph, of Wednesday, July 17th, 2013:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/maralynparker/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/the_coalitions_school_education_policy_independent_public_schools_and_more_/
and an article, by way of reply, from the NSW Education Minister, in The Sydney Morning Herald, of Saturday, July 20, 2013:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-shuns-federal-coalition-plan-to-split-state-schools-20130719-2q9ng.html
it is now possible to say with confidence that the Coalition have a plan to spread nationwide, by ‘encouraging’ the States, that system which has been implemented in Western Australia, and is being rolled out now in Queensland. Though not one that NSW is interested in.
What is it and what does it involve?
From this article in ‘WA Today’ of March 25, 2012:
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/minister-refutes-privatisation-of-schools-20120325-1vs4k.html
we have the WA Minister of Education, Dr Liz Constable, explaining the guts of it as being about giving School Principals more autonomy in the schools they run and attracting experienced and outstanding Principals to the most disadvantaged schools, with financial incentives, and allowing them to develop the programs that will lead to an overall improvement in the school’s results.
Which sounds all well and good, and, as Dr Constable explains, it is merely the implementation of an agreement to do just that which has been entered into with the federal government.
The other aspect of the Coalition policy is this:
Under the policy, schools can apply to become an IPS, giving them autonomy over budgets and staffing, greater discretion over curriculum, and managed partly by a school board. They remain publicly funded and do not charge compulsory fees.
However, Minister Piccoli in NSW is not convinced:
”While we are talking about very significant devolution of authority from the centre out to local schools, we are not talking about wholesale autonomy,” he said. ”We will not be introducing charter schools or independent public schools because there is no evidence that they improve student performance.”
If it doesn’t lead to improved student performance, why advocate for it then? Unless it is to be the thin end of the wedge which leads to the Privatisation of Public Education, where schools are run by ‘Education Services Providers’, who take over the running of the schools and the education of the students in them, from the government.
Such as has been happening in Sweden for the last few decades, and is happening in Britain now, where the Cameron Tory government, under Education Minister, Michael Gove, has introduced Academies and Free Schools, and is considering whether to allow them to be able to run and make a profit:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cash-for-classrooms-michael-gove-plans-to-let-firms-run-schools-for-profit-8682395.html
So, as you can see, at least we now have an Education policy from the Coalition, and we can compare it to the ‘Better Schools’ offering from the Labor federal government.
Two radical new proposals to take education of our kids down a new path in the 21st century.
One an evolution of our present model and an improvement upon the, now generally recognised, failed model of the Howard years.
The other, a devolution revolution. And one which it’s critics say benefits the companies who seek to get into the education space, more than the students themselves.
The election will decide which one we get.
THE PUB 
First question. “We really need the Gonski money in Tassie. Will you give us this extra money in Gonski if you are elected.”
Answer: No school will be worse off.
Translated answer: No
Speers – but will it be as good as Labor’s
Answer: we don’t know what he has offered.
Translated Answer: see above
Q2 is a load of crap, won’t bother with it.
Q2
How would your children describe you?
My response: Who gives a toss?
Pause until next question.
Aguirre
SNAP!
Q3 Tamar valley pollution due to inversions leading to highr levels of hospitalisation. Leads into dioxin from pulp mill. Would you still support the pulp mill?
Answer:Yes but must conform to international standards.
Continuation – Tassie needs to be more than just a national park.
Q3 cont. The questioner skewers him on the detail and Abbott ducks/
Q3 – Pulp Mill. Would Abbott reconsider his support for it? Abbott promises nothing, says nothing, talks about things he’d like to see, tells the guy he’s wrong. Questioner follows up with health issues. Abbott basically fobs him off.
Not much of a start for Abbott so far.
Abbott definitely drowning not waving 😆
scorpio6to2
Absolutely brilliant!. Thanks for sharing it. replayed it 3 times already.
Comment: The lizard visage is well in evidence tonight.
Q4 – This guy likes the sound of his own voice. Written himself a nice piece of prose, on the theme of “Greens are Shit”. Trying everyone’s patience now. Finally gets to his point – jurisdictional duplication. Abbott treats him like a four year old, and now has a go at Gillard.
Q4 from an environmental scientist who described the Greens as a curse. Seems like he is a right winger who takes along time to get to the question. Speers impatient. FFS shutup! How can Abbott reduce jurisdictional crossover. Phew!
A: He’s sympathetic. Need to simplify the process. Badmouths Gillard for not going ahead (because the proposal was knocked back by the states in COAG)
Charlie just fired up big time on ‘The project’. Great speech
Q5 – Army man. No idea what he’s on about yet – something about putting country first. Why should we vote for Abbott? It’s an open field for Abbott to natter on, effectively. He chooses the “politicians are ok really” approach. So this is a waste of a couple of minutes.
Q5 He doesn’t like any leader. Why should I vote for you?
A: Answered well. It’s a democracy. You get what you vote far. The rest of the world envy us so as a class the politicians have done us proud. Even the Greens.
Vote for me if you want x y z axed. Goes into talking points.
Abbott’s still talking. It’s all old slogans, so no need to reproduce them hear, you’ve heard them a thousand times before.
BOATS! A non sequitur to a question from Seers.
Gawd, he’s still talking. Getting less specific with each sentence.
Gawd Abbott is embarrassing when Gonski questions come up . Peta will be tearing here hair out. Best he can manage ” You won’t be worse off” ….for about the fourth time.
Q6 from a trainee primary scool teacher. If you want to scrap Gonski how will you adress the educational gaps?
A: We want to see better schools. Money is not the only thing. And I don’t know where the money would come from. Trust e, I will grow the economy by cutting taxes (Tea Party trickle down economics?)
Abbott has a crack at the young questioner and she says “You haven’t answered my question” to which he answers by not answering it again.
***I can’t wait for the debates!****
She has another crack and the best he can come up with is ” no school will be worse off”.
Q6 – Gonski. What do the Liberals have to offer in place of it? Abbott offers his usual ‘something else’ response. He’s telling us again what he thinks doesn’t work, and how much it all costs, but he’s got nothing to put in its place. Off-topic entirely now. Talking about growing the economy.
Eeeurggh. Abbott now trying to engage with his questioner – asks her a leading question (does she really think her state is not trying to do better?) She puts him in his place on that. He’s screwed this one up entirely. No plan, just waffle.
I reckon the mob that picked this audience has set Abbott up.
Q7 from another teacher asking about many scientific bodies’ findings on climate change and where he gets his advice from.
A: CC is real but I disagree with the “floating carbon tax” and we “don’t want burecrats in Brussells calling the shots. Bongs on about the direct action plan. Blah blah blah.
Q7 – Climate change. What’s he got against doing something about it? Abbott says he believes in climate change, but doesn’t like the carbon tax. Direct action is the way to go. Trees and soil and stuff. Has a go at the ALP – carbon emissions going up.
Q8 Will you do anything to protect the rights of children and gives her problem a run
This is not really a fair question for him to answer in this forum in my opinion.
Q8 – Parents having rights over their own children. She want a straight answer from Abbott as to whether he’s going to do something about it. Yeah, good luck with that lady. He’s raised the waffle-meter to 8.
Anyone in Tasmania not a teacher ?
Q9 Retired teacher. Laser eye surgery has no Medicare coverage – it is classed as cosmetic. Will you review this?
A: As Health Minister I often grappled with the inclusion of new treatments in to Medicare. Sometimes takes time. There is a process (like PBS) that deals with procedures so I’ll leave it to them. It is a proven process.
Now I must pause to eat dinner. Over to you for a while, Aguirre.
Q9 – Retired teacher with eye problems. Reimbursement for laser eye surgery not covered under medicare. Not fair. What will Abbott do? Abbott – I used to be Health Minister, so you can take the following wobbly set of platitudes as gospel. Trust the process. Abbott is confident good things will happen in the future if you trust the process. So there you go, dear – shut up, we’ll sort that out when we’re good and ready.
I don’t usually read these Lib talking points I receive by email, but I did this time.
For the record:
After all… it’s a National Emergency. Youse should all stay alert and alarmed.
Q10 – Positive environmental implementation question. Abbott – oh, good things are happening. So we can reduce our emissions, without the carbon tax. Linfox get their drivers to drive better and have less artificial light, and they say they’ve cut their emissions by 35% (note – somebody should check that up).
Q11 – Incentives to small business, to offset unemployment. Abbott doesn’t think business needs to be stimulated, he thinks we need (all together now…) less red tape, no carbon tax, no mining tax. No money for small business, just no carbon tax. He’s on about the GST now. Power prices will come down, he believes.
Q12 – Rethink allocation of funds? So that Tasmania gets a fair share of it? Develop some departments down there? Abbott says they will. Oh yes, they’ll look at it, where appropriate, if they can, dontcha know. He’s aware of that, and the impact, but it needs to be done sensibly, modestly, otherwise not at all really.
Molan wants our defence forces to do less humanitarian work and more shootin’, killin’ and sustained combat fighting that goes on for years. So it seems his enthusiasm for Abbott’s war on boat people is because he hopes the troops will get to do some fighting.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/start-fighting-for-real/story-e6frg74x-1111116988071
I found his views on Stephen Smith and the defence force sex scandals pretty much what I thought they’d be – ‘boys will be boys’, ‘it’s just a few bad apples’, ‘it happens everywhere, so what?’.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/a-few-bad-apples-dont-create-a-culture/story-e6frgd0x-1226666517661
Q14 Another teacher! She’s read of your plans to cut funds for essential services (public health, education law and order) will you provide the funds.
A. No cuts. Will reverse some Albor cuts.
My take: We’ll see!
Sounds like the abbott is on the ball, winning friends and influencing people – will he get a pat on the back from Peta or a punch in the eye?
Motherhood.
And more motherhood.
BREAKING NEWS! “We will tell before the election just what savings we will make”
A comprehensive fiscal list, no less!
Q13 – Intentions to cut funding to essential services. Can he assure that it won’t happen? Abbott lists the areas where he won’t make cuts. In fact they’ll reverse cuts. To law and order anyway. The ALP have made cuts to essential services. He won’t commit to doing anything more than that, and he’s on to platitudes again (“We all want… etc”). He thinks cutting the carbon tax will stimulate the economy so much that they’ll be able to fund some wonderful things one day. Instead of the current government, which says one thing and does another, the Coalition will promise nothing, aspire to everything, and therefore keep their promises.
Now he’s back on this promise to provide all their costings in good time for the next election.
Surely the Labor party organized this event ?
Q15 NBN – wonderful NBN! Also length of parliamnetary terms
A: You’ll get faster broadband sooner and cheaper. And Turnbull is wonderfull. I the NBN rollout continues at this pace it will be 80 years for Tassie to be connected. Then trots out download speed numbers that are open to much criticism. Repeats 80 years. Now Abbott hits back at the old guy with “why do you need it so fast?”
Q14 – NBN. Abbott supports it! (He’s a recent convert, but never mind) You’ll get it sooner and more affordably! Turnbull’s applied Hockeynomics to the Tasmanian rollout. Abbott’s telling this guy he doesn’t need 100MB/s, he only needs 25MB/s. It’s a festival of misinformation here.
Abbott still drowning not waving.
Speers nails Abbott with BB connection fees. Abbott flummoxes.
Abbott doesn’t want fixed terms, he want to be PM Now! Elections whenever! Abbott’s not saying Rudd shouldn’t go to the G20 meeting, but he’s saying it. And now he’s repeating that he won’t debate Rudd until the election is called, but he would have debated him tonight. If you can figure that out.
Last Q: Forrestry
A I won’t lock up any more forrests. Bags Labor/Grrens governments.
BK summary.
A signal waste of time. That’s one hour I’ll never get back!
Q15 – ALP bashing. Businesses going down the gurgler. Forestry industry is dying. Waddayareckon, Tony? Abbott won’t lock up forests. He’s rhapsodising about the forestry industry.
What will Tone’s Waffe actually do?