Government's double Gonski backflip an act of brazen politicking
Christopher Pyne is too occupied with ripping down the education funding architecture of the past Labor government to spend a bit of extra time studying it first.
An offer by members of the Gonski panel to take him through the detail before he begins the demolition job has been rebuffed.
Of all portfolios, for a minister of state for education to appear so wilfully uninterested in further evidence is concerning at several levels.
At stake is no less than the optimum usage of multiple billions in taxpayer funds and, therefore, the future productivity of the country.
His refusal to allocate the few hours needed to satisfy himself – and be seen to be satisfying himself – of the facts, exposes an emerging pattern for this government: that its primary energies are more often directed at undoing reforms rather than making them.
Pyne clearly thinks he has the field covered and has no need for any extra tuition.
That would be a difficult proposition for any new minister to justify, let alone one with such a compromised history in this policy area.
Before the election, Tony Abbott and his then education spokesman performed an undignified backflip on the so-called Gonski model.
"As far as school funding is concerned, Kevin Rudd and I are on a unity ticket," Mr Abbott stunned voters with on Friday August 2, this year.
"There is no difference between Kevin Rudd and myself when it comes to school funding."
It was as brazen a policy reversal as has been attempted in federal politics in many a season. Just a day before, Pyne, in discussing what he was fond of calling the "conski" model, said: "The truth is of course it's a great con ... and the Coalition's not going to pretend the government is actually delivering new money when it isn't."
In the hours that followed those comments however, Abbott concluded he had lost the argument. Like it or not, the Gonski deal was being embraced by state governments of both stripes, and was being supported by voters as the Liberals' own market testing had shown.
An election was imminent.
And so it went. Abbott backflipped (as above), Victoria agreed to the deal, as did the Catholic school sector. Kevin Rudd set the election date for September 7.
The argument was settled.
Yet now, in government, Pyne wants to salvage his original opposition by arguing that neither Victoria nor Tasmania actually formally signed up, and neither did the Catholic school sector.
They might have agreed but they hadn't signed.
Pyne is now using an essentially legalistic justification for breaking a clear and unqualified political undertaking – and one from which the then opposition was happy to take the political dividend at the time.
Asked if he would take the briefing from the Gonski panel, Pyne said no, explaining: "I have to get on with the job of being education minister."
Many would say that after the complex policy work undertaken over years, and the subsequent agreements entered into in good faith by states such as NSW, a methodical "adult" government would at least try to ensure it had built public confidence and trust before changing course again.
It appears that the government's aim is nakedly political: to ensure that the Gonski reforms are not able to be cited in future years as part of a Labor legacy.
Two major polls are now showing support for the government is already sliding.
One explanation is that an image is emerging of a new government which is not what it said it would be.
That rather than being calm, purposeful, and methodical, it is coming across as mean, clever, and political.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/governments-double-gonski-backflip-an-act-of-brazen-politicking-20131126-2y6zx.html#ixzz2liA2bklX
reading this one could be mistaken for thinking the Libs deliberately lied before the election.
