Radio National

Subjects: Education Policy

EO&E.........

 

CHRISTOPHER PYNE:

Good morning Fran, good morning Bill.

FRAN KELLY:

Before we get to schools policy, can I get a response from you both about these costings claims from the Federal Government yesterday. Bill Shorten, heads of Treasury and Finance have made that extraordinary intervention, basically blowing apart your claims that the Coalition has a big black hole in its costings doesn’t it?

BILL SHORTEN:

No, the issue here which can clear everything up is for the Opposition to reveal its costings. They have said before the election, that they would, before the election was called reveal their policies and costings, they haven’t done that. Since the election was called they have said, in good time, in good time which is Coalition speak for actually we just want the election to happen and then we will reveal our costings after the election. They could clear it up, if they think we are exaggerating by all means, just show us you costings. What was that line in the Jerry Maguire film? Where the footballer coach is Jerry Maguire. What I would say to Tony Abbott is show me the money, how are you going to pay for things?

KELLY:

Christopher Pyne, a quick response from you. Why don’t we get the costings now? Treasury and Finance have seen them.

PYNE:

Well Fran, the simple fact is that Kevin Rudd has been proven to be the biggest makeup artist of all time. He’s been publicly and humiliatingly repudiated by the Secretary of the Department of Treasury, the Secretary of the Department of Finance and the Head of the Parliamentary Budget Office. What they’ve done is very publicly confirm what most people already suspected, which is Labor’s campaign is entirely built around scares and lies. Kevin Rudd tried yesterday to get a story up that we had a $10 billion black hole. In an unprecented move, the heads of departments of the Treasury and Finance office completely repudiated him and…

KELLY:

Yes but we still don’t know your figures, we’re still to see your assumptions, we really can’t know for certain.

PYNE:

Fran, people can keep trying to run these arguments about the Coalition’s costing but the simple truth is Labor has had an exocet missile land below their water line and sunk their scare campaign.

KELLY:

Okay, let’s go to..

SHORTEN:

Hang on, for the record, Christopher Pyne was asked a question, a straight up question and the he did not give answer and the listeners know this is not a lie. You were asked, when are you going to reveal your costings?

PYNE:

Well I’m happy to answer that question. On Wednesday, Joe Hockey spoke to the National Press Club, he announced $31 billion worth of savings measures fully costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office…

KELLY:

Yes but you didn’t say how much your policies will cost and your assumptions within that.

SHORTEN:

Bingo.  That’s your exocet missile, Chris, below your proverbial waterline.

KELLY:

Hang on, Bill Shorten.

PYNE:

$31 billion dollars released on Wednesday costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office and we said there would be more potentially next week, early in the week that we would release, but the bulk, the vast bulk of our savings measures have been released on Wednesday at the National Press Club. Kevin Rudd then tried to lie about it yesterday. The Departments of Secretary of Finance..

KELLY:

Okay

PYNE:

..have blown that out of the water.

KELLY:

Hang on you two. Christopher Pyne, Bill Shorten, if I can get control of this for a moment. Let’s move to the schools debate now, because we’ve only got thirteen minutes to do it before the news and we’ve got a lot to get through. So could I ask you both to keep your answers relatively tight? Let’s go to this whole notion of how to fund it. Christopher Pyne, Tony Abbott keeps saying that the Coalition is a unity ticket with the Government now on schools funding, but it’s not is it? I mean you signed up for four years, the Government signed up to six and the bulk of the money does not flow until those final two years. Will you commit to honouring that extra $7 billion dollars that would flow under Labor’s plan? The plan signed on to by the States, the Catholic and Independent schools in those last two years.

PYNE:

Fran, the only figures you can rely on is the forward estimates in the Budget, which is four years. That is all Labor has got on the record. The other aspect of that of course is that the schools funding agreement is a four year agreement. Now, Kevin Rudd has cooked Labor’s goose himself, because when he was asked to do the costings on moving Garden Island to Brisbane and the Northern Territory company tax cut plan, he said we can’t cost those because they are outside the forward estimates, Labor can’t have their cake and eat it too, they can’t say it is only the next four years that counts, except in education.

KELLY:

Well because we’ve got the Gonski Review, which is a long term vision for how we address the school funding issues in several of States. As mentioned, the Independent and the Catholic schools have signed on to a six year funding agreement, will you honour that agreement?

PYNE:

Fran, the Gonski Review required $6.5 billion of new money, every year for the next four years, that’s $26 billion. Labor and the Coalition are putting in $2.8 billion, so Labor is not making any effort at all to implement the Gonski Report.

KELLY:

So you won’t honour the $10 billion that Labor at least says or pledges it will give over the next six years? You’re not honouring that promise?

PYNE:

I am going to be straight with the Australian people for the next four years under the forward estimates, under the school agreement, the Coalition and Labor are exactly the same on funding. Labor has made promises going back the last two elections, to build 2650 trade training centres, 260 childcare centres, neither of them they ever delivered. Why would anybody believe these promises when they couldn’t believe any promises Labor made and they couldn’t believe the lies Kevin Rudd said today about the Coalition’s policy.

KELLY:

Okay we’ve been there. Bill Shorten, why would anyone believe promises made beyond the four year forward estimates?

SHORTEN:

Because we’ve executed agreements with the majority of the States with all of the organisations representing non-Government schools. Labor’s education policy is clear and we’ve actually stuck to it for the last three years, which is in distinct difference to the Coalition. There are three major differences between us and the Coalition on education.  One, we have signed up to six year agreements, it’s fully costed and available and I know the Coalition is not into costings, but we have provided six years of costings of a deal  with the States. If this wasn’t a real six year deal, as Christopher Pyne disparages, then why on earth does he think Barry O’Farrell, Dennis Napthine, Jay Weatherill, Lara Giddings, Katie Gallagher, they’re the senior, Chief Ministers of all those jurisdictions, the Catholic Education Commission, the Independent Schools Council of Australia. Where the Liberals can’t be trusted on the education debate is this; they’ve only said four years because they know they were getting beaten up because they weren’t as credible on education. Then what’s happened is we’ve got six year agreements, which all these jurisdictions regardless of politics, have signed up to. So how on earth can you believe a political party who for three years has bagged the education reforms as late as August the first this month? Christopher Pyne was on TV rubbishing out schemes, then he back flipped to try and surf the credibility Labor has on education.  And on trade training centres…

KELLY:

Okay, I want to try and keep to school funding because we are going to run out of time here.  But just on this issue..

SHORTEN:

I just want to finish one other point. When it comes to education, when you vote for education do you vote for people who have bagged an idea for the whole life of the last three years? Or do  you vote for people who are providing six years? And when Christopher Pyne said we don’t do six year arrangements, Tony Abbott said in his debate, in his presentation, that they would being the Government to surplus, the Budget, in ten years… (inaudiable).

KELLY:

Hold on, hold on. I just want to have a follow up question to Bill Shorten, then Mr Pyne I will come back to you. Bill Shorten, a lot of people listening think that if it is so important, why is most of the money, $7.2 billion, going to be delivered in years five and six, a long way off.

SHORTEN:

Well first of all, it’s been a tough economic time for Government and the community, so therefore you can’t put all your money in the first year if it isn’t there. But what you can do is you can build the needs based funding architecture, which we’re doing so kids with a disability, kids who need extra help with skills and numeracy, the professional development of teachers, we have got a road map for the next six years and yes there is more money in the later years because we’ve cleared room in our Budget to do it. The Coalition, every education expert in Australia knows the Coalition hoped that we wouldn’t get a majority of States up, they hoped the non-Government sector wouldn’t sign, so they didn’t do their homework. Near an election they’ve turned up with an inadequate offering for public schools and non-Government schools and now they are saying trust us.

KELLY:

Okay and I do urge you all to keep your answers shorter too, otherwise we are never going to get through this and get to other things, like teacher quality. Christopher Pyne, reports suggest today that the States that haven’t signed up to the Labor Government school reform plan will miss out because $1.2 billion set aside for Queensland, Western Australia and the NT is now not in the Budget, essentially when Labor could not do the deal with those States it was taken off the books for PEFO before the election. So Queensland, WA and the Northern Territory will miss out on extra federak funding, is that your view? Can you confirm that?

PYNE:

Fran, we will have exactly the same funding envelope as Labor does and that’s for the next four years.

KELLY:

Does that mean Queensland Premier Campbell Newman, for instance, will miss out on some of the funding?

PYNE:

Fran, we will have exactly the same funding envelope as Labor over the next four years.  Whether you vote Liberal or Labor you will get exactly the same amount of money.

KELLY:

And on this notion of the road map that Bill Shorten talked about there, which is essentially the Gonski plan, if the money that you’re promising does not match the money that Labor is promising over that six years and the States have also promised to contribute, then how will you be able to fund the basically resource funding standard? Which is the essence, the basis of the Gonski model, which is that every school gets this resource funding standard with prop up payments according to disadvantage. If you don’t commit to this whole pot of money, how can you commit to that?

PYNE:

Well with great respect Fran, this is not essentially the Gonski model as you put it.

KELLY:

Well the resource funding standard is still there in this funding then.

PYNE:

The socio-economic status model is needs based, money goes to the schools that need it the most, the Student Resource Standard is another way of explaining the SES funding model.

KELLY:

Well no it’s a different model, the Gonski committee came up with a different model.

PYNE:

Not really, I think you’ll find that if you read the Gonski report closely, you’ll see that they said the socio-economic status data is exactly the data they need to use for the Student Resource Standard… (inaudible.)

KELLY:

Hang on Bill Shorten, I’ll come to you in a moment. Can I just clarify, the Coalition is not committing to using the Resource Funding Standard?

PYNE:

No we are, I’m just trying to explain to you how it works, we are committed to the student resource standard, of course we are. We are committed to this new school funding model. I’m just explaining to you that it’s based on the socio-economic status model and if you read the Gonski report closely you will see they actually said that the data set that is used for the SES model, will be the data set that is used for the SRS model, so it’s not that different to what we have now.

KELLY:

The Student Resource Standard is not much different, but are you going to stick with the student resource standard or are you going to go with the other model?

PYNE:

Yes, we are sticking with the Student Resource Standard. Exactly the same as Labor.

SHORTEN:

Well that’s a development, because I tell you what, the Student Resource Standard is one of the, it’s the centre piece of this what this committee of experts we got which was chaired by a chap called Gonski where they looked at a group of the best performing schools and they looked at what’s the resource standard the best performing schools have. We then negotiated with States to get to 95% of what we think is the optimal level to get to the right student resource standard. But the only way you can get to 95% is if you require states to put more money in to education, not less. So what Christopher Pyne said on October the second with Tony Abbott was that we will give money to States no strings attached. So there’s a bit of a contradiction we’ve just heard emerge this morning in their education policy, and it’s this; on the first of August they bagged a lot of the ideas, then they have this remarkable conversion the next day where they actually say we’re Labor lite, you can have all of our money but now with the strings attached, that were the words they used, no strings attached. Well, we won’t give money, if elected, to the jurisdictions that haven’t signed up, unless they accept the need to adequately fund their schools to this resource standard. So what we heard from Christopher then is on one hand he accepts the standard, but on the other hand there would be no strings attached to the States and then on the other hand he said we won’t give any more money to the states other than what Labor has offered.

KELLY:

So Christopher Pyne, just on that. I mean, as far as I can understand it, you’re no demanding the States put in extra cash or certainly that’s what Queensland thinks. If the States aren’t putting in the extra cash that Labor has demanded from the States that have signed on, how will you have the money to fund that standard?

PYNE:

Well Fran, Bill and with great respect to yourself, are getting yourselves into a great state of confusion. The Coalition’s policy is very very simple, we will do our bit, the Commonwealth will do its bit.

KELLY:

Will you demand that the States do their bit?

PYNE:

It will be up to the States to decide whether they spend their money or not because they are sovereign Governments and should be treated like adults. 

KELLY:

And does that involve the States who have not signed the agreement with the Federal Government, are they free now to just put their money whether they’ve pledged or not?

PYNE:

That is a matter for the States and Territories, because they are a sovereign governments who are responsible for schools, they run schools, they employ teachers. We will treat them with the respect they deserve. The Commonwealth will pay its share and it will be up to the States and Territories whether they pay their shares, because we believe they should be responsible to their electors in the same way we are responsible to ours. 

KELLY:

So the pot could be smaller?

SHORTEN:

My fear Fran, is the Coalition on one hand is not going to maintain the levels of funding in education which we do. They are not going to require the non-complying jurisdictions increase their funding as we are requiring them to do. If you get a Coalition Government elected after September the seventh, for Queensland, for Western Australia, the Northern Territory they will get the green light that they can take money out of their education system and the Coalition will just put money in. But the real problem with that, is that there is no overall increase in education funding in those jurisdictions compared to other States that have signed up. If deal is such a bad deal, why did the Liberal Government of Victoria sign up to a six year deal with us after they heard the Liberal Coalition Federal policy?

KELLY:

Very briefly can I ask you in thirty seconds or less to explain Christopher Pyne, what your plan would do to improve the quality of teaching?

PYNE:

Well we want to focus relentlessly on teacher quality because we think it is a very important thing in any school in terms of getting good student outcomes and we want to put students first. We also have unique responsibility over the training of teachers, because we have compacts with every university. So if we are elected on Saturday week, we will sit down with the universities, we will get the best teacher training for our undergraduate teachers, so that the new teachers we are producing into the market place are of the highest quality.

KELLY:

Bill Shorten, you’ve got thirty seconds too. What’s your plan to improve teacher quality? How would you do it? How are you doing it differently?

SHORTEN:

Like a number of aspects of education, the Liberals have photocopied our polices and read them out. What we will do in education, we will require teachers to be in the top 30% of numeracy and literacy, we will work on their practical training as well as their theoretical training. But one thing we will always do for teachers which the Coalition won’t. We believe that we already have a lot of good teachers who are teaching…

KELLY:

Very Briefly.

SHORTEN:

..we believe they are not valued sufficiently. What we will do, is we will never blame teachers for all the challenges of the education system, we’re on their side. They do a great job.

KELLY:

Bill Shorten and Christopher Pyne, I think there’s a lot more there is a lot more we probably should have gotten through but it’s hard to keep you quiet. Thank you very much for joining us. 

ENDS.