Sky News Agenda

SUBJECTS: Gonski review; Peter Slipper E&OE…………  David Speers: Christopher Pyne, welcome.  If the Government does go ahead with this reported $6.5 billion in school funding do you agree a lot of parents would actually welcome that? Christopher Pyne: Oh look David, planning a $6.5 billion injection into the school funding model on an annual basis, which is $26 billion over the next four years is like planning your family budget around winning Powerball on a Thursday night.  This is a Government whose surplus is essentially evaporating.  It was based on 450 boat arrivals a month and they’re doubling that.  There’s no way they’ll deliver a surplus and there’s absolutely no possibility that they have $6.5 billion on an annual basis to spend extra on schools.  So, the idea is a cruel hoax, David and even entertaining the possibility is raising expectations and trying to fool Australian parents and I’m not going to enter into that trickery. Speers: Some of this money would come from the states though, although the bulk of it presumably would come from the Commonwealth.  If there is a way of finding this money, albeit through spending cuts or higher taxes is there an argument at least for increasing school funding to this extent. Pyne: Look, David, the states are broke except for Western Australia, the Federal Government has a massive debt problem, has no surplus, is running essentially a deficit budget in a real sense.  If the Government has new plans for increasing taxes then it needs to outline what they are.  If it has new plans to raise $6.5 billion a year, remembering that the mining tax is supposed to collect $13 billion – so if they have plans to impose a new tax for school funding they should come clean and explain it to the Australian public.  It is absolutely outrageous for the Government to put out there that they will be spending $6.5 billion more when every parent knows in every school that this is a broke federal government and it doesn’t have that kind of money.  Now that kind of trickery - and we saw it with the carbon tax before the last election when Julia Gillard said there would be no carbon tax under a government she led and now she’s introduced one and of course the idea they have that kind of money - $26 billion over four years is pure fantasy and I’m not going to encourage the hoaxing of the Australian people by suggesting that money is available because it is not. Speers:  What would happen though if the Government did find a way of finding this money and going ahead with the Gonski reforms?  What would happen if the Coalition then won the next election?  Would you take back that money?  Would you repeal any reforms in place? Pyne:  Well David really it’s like asking me if it’s true that white rabbits talk in Alice in Wonderland.  If the Government has $26 billion, let’s see it.  Let’s see the Government put that money on the table.  The Coalition does not believe the current funding model is broken.  I’m not prepared to simply accept that it is broken because it isn’t.  It is an objective needs-based model that encourages private investment, that rewards parents who scrimp and save to put their children in non-government schools.  If the Gonski model was implemented lock, stock and barrel hundreds of schools would still miss out.  Hundreds of schools would lose funding and push up parents’ fees.  If the Gonski model goes ahead without the extra money then all schools will be facing higher school fees at a time of real cost of living pressure.  So whatever way you implement the Gonski model, hundreds of schools will be worse off and that means tens of thousands of parents.  But if the Gonski model is implemented without the extra money then all schools will be worse off.  So let’s actually see what the Government’s doing.  They put that story in the paper this morning and now they’ve gone very quiet on the subject, the Minister for School Education isn’t even at work at the moment, he isn’t even on duty.  Let’s actually see the colour of the Government’s money before we start praising anything they’re doing in this space at all. Speers:  The Government though says no school will be a dollar worse off and funding will be indexed.  This is just an argument about the sort of indexation that’s going to be used.  You want to stick with the current funding formula.  Are you therefore saying there is no case for reform here? Pyne:  Look David, talk is cheap.  The Government keeps talking.  It‘s had since February this year when the Gonski Review was publicly released, it’s had the Gonski Review since last December.  It’s still talking, it’s all hot air.  Let’s actually see the Government’s response, let’s see the colour of their money.  Now the Coalition’s made a commitment that we will index the current non-government schools funding at 6 per cent.  The Government’s made no such promise to the non-government school sector.  The Government’s said they will lose no dollar in funding.  Well that means no indexation.  That’s a $4.2 billion cut to non-government schools.  Now all of this is just hot air, it’s just talk from a Government that is high on talk and short on delivery.  Lets see the colour of their money. Speers: But if you are going to commit a six per cent funding rise for all schools does that mean to find the finding for that you would have to undo whatever the government does on this? Pyne: I don’t believe the government will do anything on the Gonski review. They are running out of time.  They won’t have time this year to implement legislation. They don’t have the money; they have completely run into a cul-de-sac on this issue.  I believe they will simply roll the current SES funding model over for another year to get them through their third election without a policy while holding out unrealistic expectations to schools and parents.  I am not going to encourage those unrealistic expectations by pretending that the federal government has $26 billion in new money to spend in the government sector. Speers: What about the other part of the reform, the recommendation for greater transparency so parents can have more information on their performance on individual teachers?  Do you support that side of these proposed reforms? Pyne: Well look David I think the teachers, principals and schools are heavily over regulated.  Whenever the federal government has run out of things to say, they always talk about more transparency and accountability.  What that always means is more red tape, more bureaucracy, more hours spent by teachers and principals filling out forms.  What schools need is less red tape, less bureaucracy.  What parents want is to see their teachers teaching rather than acting as bureaucrats in the classroom.  I can’t see what more transparency or accountability could be required by schools for parents.  Quite frankly, what teachers need is the opportunity to have more professional development.  What new teachers need is better training so we have the highest quality teachers teaching the most robust curriculum with parents as involved as much as possible in their schools which means more principal autonomy and local control by governing councils.  We don’t need more bureaucracy; we don’t need more red tap. Speers: And just finally Christopher Pyne on a separate matter - Peter Slipper – the court case on sexual harassment claims has been adjourned.  If the case is thrown out by the court, should he be allowed to return to the Speaker’s chair? Pyne: Look I haven’t seen the outcome of the action in the federal court today.  From listening to your news brief it appears that hasn’t been what the Federal Court has decided.  But of course the issues surrounding the Speaker’s use of the Cabcharge dockets is not yet resolved. So neither of those matters are resolved and until both are resolved I don’t think it is appropriate for the Speaker to resume the chair. Speers: Christopher Pyne, thank you. Pyne: It’s a pleasure, thank you. ENDS