Delaying Gonski reforms represents pragmatic political expediency

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.