Apr 29, 2013

PromiseWatch 2013: what have the parties pledged on education?

As part of our Promise Watch series, Crikey and the Centre for Policy Development examine pledges from the two major parties on education. Andrew Crook and the CPD's Julia Hosking report.

The problem with the Gonski Review into education, Kevin Rudd told his former speechwriter in March, was that the vast majority of voters had no idea what “Gonski” means. In the manner of modern Labor governments, a commitment to increased funding for education — which has the support of three-quarters of the Australian population — had somehow become swaddled in the language of the “independent review” necessary to justify it.


Leave a comment

8 thoughts on “PromiseWatch 2013: what have the parties pledged on education?

  1. Stephen

    Even if the unelectable Gillard got elected, the earliest possible date we could Get Gonskied is 2019. By which time, Howard’s friendly funding formula for the god schools would have been in force for two decades.

    In other words, what the parties effectively have pledged on education is a continuing and unremitting assault on a free, secular schooling that rewards ability and not birth.

  2. Achmed

    I’m not sure how “new” the PBO is, since it was set up by Howard in 1999.

    This is the same PBO that Abbott refused to provide his election costing to in 2010

  3. Achmed

    The Liberal manifesto released in the last couple of months gives an insight to the Abbott stance on education. “Real Solutions for all Australians” sets out the Abbott policy but has no costings.

  4. Achmed

    What is surprising is the extent to which Coalition policies will result in a significant redistribution of wealth upwards rather than downwards. Consider the following Coalition policies:

    ■ Lower the tax-free threshold from $18,200 to $6000. This will drag more than one million low-income earners back into the tax system. It will also increase the taxes for 6 million Australians earning less than $80,000.

    ■ Abolish the low-income superannuation contribution. This will reimpose a 15 per cent tax on superannuation contributions for people earning less than $37,000.

    ■ Abolish the proposed 15 per cent tax on income from superannuation above $100,000 a year. The combined effect of these two superannuation changes is that 16,000 high-income earners with superannuation savings in excess of $2 million will get a tax cut while 3.6 million workers earning less than $37,000 will pay more than $4 billion extra in tax on their super over the next four years.

    ■ Abolish the means test on the private health insurance rebate. This will deliver a $2.4 billion tax cut over three years for individuals earning more than $84,001 a year, or couples earning more than $168,001. People on lower incomes will receive no benefit.

    ■ Introduce a paid parental leave scheme that replaces a mother’s salary up to $150,000. To put it crudely, this means a low-income mum gets about $600 per week while a high-income mum gets close to $3000.

    ■ Abolish the means-tested Schoolkids Bonus that benefits 1.3 million families by providing up to $410 for each primary school child and up to $820 for each high school child.

    These policies will result in low- and middle-income earners paying billions of dollars more in tax while those on higher incomes receive billions in tax cuts and new benefits. Rather than take from the rich and give to the poor, the Coalition policies are a case of take from the poor and give to the rich.

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/abbott-not-gillard-is-the-true-class-warrior-20130428-2imis.html#ixzz2RtgcQgau

  5. Edward James

    The problem Kevin Rudd told his former speechwriter in March, was that the vast majority of voters had no idea what “Gonski” means. In the manner of modern Labor governments. Well thats interesting Julia and Andrew , do the majority of voters know what “corruption” means? Edward James

  6. GF50

    Agree with the comments 1-4 and will add: Remove public funding from ALL non public schools NOW. IN FULL. All Government funding belongs to the public NOT with Private CHOICES.

  7. klewso

    I reckon, if you’ve got the money to send your kids to “private schools” – send them to private schools.
    If you don’t, send them public – why should we all subsidise such elitism? Taking money from public education and other greater public “services”.

    [……. which is funny, because then those elites will label anyone labelling them elite, as “elitists”?]

  8. Achmed

    klewso – looks like we may disagree on this one. Private schools should get govt money. If the private schools were not there all those students would be in the public system increasing the education expenditure.

    The problem comes when the private schools are getting more Govt money than the public schools. This is what needs to be addressed. The richest organisation in the world, the Catholic Church, should not need and even want Govt subsidies, they are taking money from the people who need it most. Something I would have thought goes against the “spirit” of their religion

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details