Delaying Gonski reforms represents pragmatic political expediency

It comes as no surprise that Prime Minister Rudd has flagged (The Australian, 2013) that the legislative timetable to implement Gonski reforms outlined in the recently passed Australian Education Bill 2013 may be shelved for perhaps 12 months to allow 'extended negotiations' to take place with the non-government school sector to 'help the smooth introduction of the huge changes' involved.

Will a gullible public accept such base political rhetoric on the grounds that the new prime minister will be seen in a more conciliatory light?

By delaying the Bill's consequences will this assure that its legislative implications will not adversely affect the non-government sector and the estimated 550,000 families whose children attend such schools?

Will the delay provide much needed electoral breathing space for the ALP leading into the next election?

The newspaper reported that the delay announcement was made by 'senior government sources' and not the Prime Minister nor the newly minted schools minister Bill Shorten.

Potentially politically damaging news concerning delayed government policy cannot be ascribed to any key party leader pending the forthcoming election leaving adequate wriggle room for politicians responsible for policy determination to more readily manage changed circumstances when and if they arrive.

Delaying implementation of the legislation clearly indicates Prime Minister Rudd has quickly realised that the entire development, implementation procedure, aborted negotiation processes and ultimately the pre-emptive presentation of Gonski-based educational changes as a legislative bill into the Parliament have been nothing short of a political catastrophe.

Let's examine the clear facts behind this delaying decision, its implications for the ALP and ultimately its significance for schools and students who seem to have been entirely forgotten as the forlorn recipients of this flawed and fractured policy program.

The ALP is adamant that the two centre pieces of policy critical to its re-election are the national disability care program and school education reform.

Disability care

Disability care commenced on 1 July 2013 with a series of five trial programs whose cost is financed by a 0.5% Medicare levy intended to raise $3.3 billion in 2014-15. Productivity Council estimates indicate a fully-blown disability care scheme will cost nearly $15 billion annually. The five trial regional locations will initially cater for 10,000 disabled/carer recipients although there are an estimated 460,000 Australians with significant ongoing disability.

While the program was always going to engage bipartisan political support it merely represents a starting point in what constitutes a massive future fiscal outlay for the economy. Ms Gillard should be rightly acknowledged as initiating the program which will remain a lasting personal, party and 43^rd parliamentary legacy compared to many other political shortcomings over the past three years.

Education funding based on the Gonski report

Educators should not forget the Gonski report recommended an additional $5 billion annually – subsequently increased to $6.5 billion by the government in recognising the practicality to accommodate cost increases since 2009 – be allocated to sustain school improvement. In the six years to 2019 – the timetable to fully implement the new funding model – accepting Gonski would require a funding commitment of $39 billion excluding cost increase compounding.

The Gillard government proposed a total of $9 billion will be expended by 2019, a drastic reduction on Gonski's recommendations. If this intended outlay appears miserly the May budget allocated a mere $473 million of additional money to the nation's 9,400 schools in 2013-14.

The implementation process and content of the Australian Education Bill testifies to the Gillard government's administrative incompetence and the failure of its responsible ministers to effectively enumerate lasting school improvements.

Implementing a policy delay strategy achieves the following political and legislative outcomes for the Prime Minister and the Labor Party.

i) Alleviates political pressure regarding a potentially crippling electoral outcome leading into the election

Kevin Rudd has effectively sidelined ongoing concern within the electorate regarding the Bill. The Australian Education Union will be muzzled by Minister Shorten to not criticise the delay and thereby compound electoral uncertainty.

ii) Allows time for Mr Rudd to legitimise Gonski-based reforms to the non-government school sector and critically its ALP voters.

Buying time to adequately discuss changes with the sector will be electorally advantageous.

iii) Takes pressure of the ALP to provide a detailed outline to the electorate of the long term influence of the Australian Education Bill especially to the non-government school sector.

iv) Personifies Mr Rudd as a conciliatory negotiator who has learnt from his past administrative and parliamentary faults during his previous PM incumbency.

This outcome reinforces polling results that testify the new Mr Rudd is entirely different from the former Prime Minister of old.

v) Relieves administrative pressure on union-backed schools minister Shorten to initiate pre-election attacks on workplace reforms by Mr Tony Abbott.

Mr Shorten will have more time to negotiate an acceptable funding outcome as he assumes 'attack dog' status against Mr Abbott by raising the bogey of Work Choices.

vi) Distances a future Rudd government from the fractured school funding implementation processes of Julia Gillard and Peter Garrett.

Behold the old regime is gone. Everything is new again.

vii) Illustrates the ALP's desire to maintain political power at any cost and without recourse.

The move makes clever political sense.

viii) Maintains a semblance of co-operative federalism by continuing dialogue with the states and territories over contentious issues with the Bill.

A federal Labor government can simply wear down recalcitrant states to ultimately accept their funding offer.

ix) Exemplifies the reality that education reform and school funding will perpetually remain a political football.

x) Delaying increased funding to schools in 2014-15 or beyond improves the federal budget and enhances the ALP's standing as responsible financial managers of the nation's economy.

Although the May budget allocated $473 million additional expenditure to schools any fiscal saving can only enhance the ALP's credentials as sound economic managers. Presumably current quadrennial funding conditions for the non-government sector will simply be extended for a designated period beyond 31 December 2013. Back to the future.

The Australian public should be abundantly clear regarding the Gonski report and its illegitimate offspring The Australian Education Bill.

Prime Minister Rudd inherited an administrative dog's breakfast from the Gillard government which was incomparably and incompetently slow to respond to the Gonski recommendations and initiate earlier discussions with the states and all education stakeholders. Inexplicitly the government constantly failed to inform the Australian public of proposed student outcomes other than to dutifully espouse feel-good homilies and gratuitous generalities.

The Bill is dogged with implementation uncertainties notably for the non-government school sector and catholic schools in particular.

The ALP will be dogmatic to ensure its education platform remains paramount leading into the forthcoming election.

Notwithstanding the apparent timing delay with the flawed Bill Kevin Rudd will doggedly pursue a more conciliatory policy approach to improve his electoral appeal while eulogising his intention to instigate school reform and improve funding for all students.

While we may not choose to invoke the ancient Chinese curse we may not choose to, but we do, live in interesting times.

For the sake of all students we hope no curse will apply to any school sector as the truncated progress of school change continues to impact on the Australian political landscape.

How the non-government school sector responds to these circumstances remains equally interesting and no less provocative.