Radio National Breakfast
HOST: Prime Minister, welcome again to Breakfast.
PM: Good morning Fran.
HOST: Can we look at first, at what this money would do? An individual school may be one or two million dollars more a year under your proposed scheme. How will that change what the school can do?
PM: That's a very good question, Fran, and what the school will be able to do is the following things.
It will be able to better support its teachers. This comes with a plan to get the best into teaching and then each and every day they need to be supported - continuous improvement, professional development so that their classroom practice is always getting better and better.
That would include a particular focus on things like managing disruptive kids in the class because we know that they can ruin education for everyone else, and dealing with new challenges or challenges that are old but with new twists on them like bullying.
It would enable schools to be able to have a personalised learning plan for every student so for the child who is falling behind they could have the reading recovery lessons that get them up to where the class is.
For the child that's cantering in front, they could have a specialised program that keeps extending them so that they're not bored with the work the rest of the class is doing.
It would enable them to employ specialists, librarians, language teachers, science teachers to round out the learning experience and to really inspire a love of learning, a love of reading, a love of science.
And it would come too with enough resources, so students could have equipment, schools could have the equipment they need, smartboards, iPads, the things that make up 21st century learning.
Every school would have to have a detailed school improvement plan, what they are trying to do, and everybody would be able to mark progress against that plan because it would all be transparent through My School.
HOST: That's the key isn't it because all of that sounds terrific but just giving an extra million dollars to a school is no guarantee of a better learning outcome.
So how do you guard against that and ensure better standards of teaching, better student support?
PM: We've already been able to show that we can work through new transparency, new resources, new ways of teaching and learning to get better outcomes for kids.
We've done that in our national partnership schools where we've put in new resources, joined them to new practical reforms and by making it all transparent everybody is able to see that more children are learning to read and write and do maths at the levels we need them learning through NAPLAN, so getting it right.
So we will make sure that this comes with a transparency and accountability agenda.
This is not money for nothing, it's money for change and that change will be monitored and reported on and transparent; not just to me as Prime Minister or to education ministers when they sit round at ministerial council but to you and every Australian through the work that we've done on My School.
HOST: Let's talk about the money because it's not money for nothing for the states either.
Under the two-for-one offer you've got on the table, a state like Queensland would receive an extra $3.8 billion over six years, Commonwealth kicking in $2.5 billion.
The Queensland Government would have to find an extra $1.3 billion from their budget. We've already heard from the state education minister this morning suggesting they don't actually know if they can do that. They're already cutting.
States are facing their own budget difficulties by and large. Are you asking too much in return?
PM: Budgets are about choices Fran and you show what you value through the choices you make.
I am putting the highest value on the education of our children.
It is what got me involved in politics, it is the thing that passionately drove me into the position that I hold now.
It is the key, not only to those children's lives and unlocking their full potential, but it is the key to us being a strong economy in the future.
We cannot be a strong nation in the future unless we've got a world-class schooling system in the top five in the world.
I can tell you from personal experiences in countries in our region that other nations will get in front of us and have the high-skilled jobs of the future unless we get this right.
So I understand that I'm asking premiers and chief ministers to make tough choices.
I'm not asking them to do anything I haven't had to face up to myself and indeed we are doing it in bigger measure because our offer is two-for-one.
We're prepared to make two dollars available for each dollar they put in.
HOST: Some of the offers on the face of it look curious. Western Australia will be eligible for only $300 million of the Commonwealth dollars. Colin Barnett, the Premier, calls your offer a disgrace.
Where is the incentive for WA to sign up for $300 million?
PM: Well $300 million is still lot of money.
HOST: But not compared to $2.5 billion.
PM: Well I'm happy to answer your question, Fran but I did make this point yesterday. I don't know when we got to the stage that $300 million is an amount of money to be sneered at.
$300 million would make a difference for schooling in Western Australia and I would want to see that difference made.
In terms of the shares between states, what we are doing here, the essence of this model, what is going to make us get school resourcing right for generations to come is that over a six year period we drive every school in the nation up to a school resourcing standard so that we know every school - whether it's Catholic, independent, state school, whether it's in WA or the Northern Territory or Tasmania - every school has the resources available to it to get the kids in that school a great education.
That means some jurisdictions; some states have got further to go to get to that school resourcing standard than others.
WA has done a good job with its schools, big tick there, it's got a shorter journey to the school resourcing standard and that's what explains the $300 million.
But if we just said, well let's share money out, let's keep the current system and just put money on top of it, then every inequity, every disparity, everything wrong with the current system would be taken with us into the future.
And that would mean that there are kids missing out, kids going to under-resourced schools and we would be embedding that lack of achievement in our schooling system for all time.
I am not prepared to do that.
HOST: Is it going to make it harder for you though to get agreement from WA? Under this model, WA gets less than Tasmania. It's been penalised for doing a good job in your words.
It's a bigger state, it has more people, more remote schools, more indigenous students
Some are suggesting that the money is going to the states where Labor has the most seats at risk.
PM: That's completely ridiculous, Fran. Have a look at the model.
The model is a mathematical model, no one, no person of reason could put the proposition you've just put.
The model has a figure for base funding for primary schools students - just over $9,000; a base figure for secondary school students - just over $12,000.
And then it has loadings that are worked through to address the kind of disadvantages that we know kids can bring to school and which means more resources have to go into their education.
That means that there's extra money and extra loading for poorer children, for indigenous children, for small schools, for remote schools, for students with disabilities and students with non-English speaking backgrounds.
The only thing driving this is the mathematics of the model.
And let me reverse engineer your question. Fran, is it acceptable to you that you live in a country where some kids go to schools that are less resourced than other children, that you live in a country where inherent in our school funding system we are saying some kids should get a second-class go and a worse education?
Now I'm sure you would answer, no that's not acceptable to you; every child should be able to get a good education.
Well Fran, if you've ticked that proposition then you must tick the next logical proposition which is that every school in every part of the country should have available to it the amount of resources necessary to get the kids in that school with all their advantages and all of their disadvantages a great education.
I'm asking Premier Barnett to agree with those propositions for our nation's future.
They're reasonable, they're right and they should be agreed to come COAG on Friday.
HOST: Prime Minister, I'm sure everyone listening would have ticked yes to the question you just asked then, which then leads to this next question. Why wait so long, why bring this in so close to the election?
Will you legislate this or try and legislate this, bring it into the federal parliament before parliament rises for the September election?
PM: Yes, we will and let me explain the timing. Fran, this has been a five year journey. For me it's been a lifetime journey.
For me it started in the days that I was at Adelaide University worrying about education and opportunity and getting involved in the student movement because I passionately believed that every child should get a great education.
For this Government it's been a five year journey.
We're only here now because when I was Education Minister I set about building My School.
We're only here now because when I was Education Minister we had our national partnership monies flow and we showed in individual schools that if you twin up new resources with new reforms you get a better education for our kids.
We're only here now because we asked David Gonski and a panel of eminent Australians to provide us with advice.
And we're only here now because we've patiently taken the time to work with education stakeholders to get this right.
And Fran, you've been observing Australian politics for a long period of time.
You know that whenever anybody in the past has tried to reform school funding in a systemic way that that has quickly degenerated into contests between school sectors.
We aren't seeing those contests now because we have been so careful and patient about this work and because this model has rigour and integrity and is right for the future and is joined with a plan for school improvement which means that our kids would get a better education.
That's why we've announced it now and it needs to be responded to on its merits.
HOST: So the contests we're seeing now are between the Federal Government and the states and in a sense that's nothing new too but also between education sectors themselves.
You've said on more than one occasion that education's your great moral cause. How does that fit with cutting university funding at a time when this country is ranked 25 out of 29 advanced economies for investment in our universities?
PM: Well Fran, let's get the facts on the table.
HOST: That's a fact.
PM: Yes, that's a fact but let's get the facts on the table about university funding.
What we are asking universities to do, is against a backdrop where there has been growth in university funding under this Government of more than 50 per cent, more than half; we are asking universities to accept a lower growth rate.
Every university still gets more money, everyone.
What we are asking them to do is to see less growth in that amount of new money.
Now, we are asking them to do that for two years; a 2 per cent efficiency dividend one year and a 1.25 per cent efficiency dividend the next year.
Funding gone up by more than 50 per cent, still more money flowing to each university, a moderation of the growth rate.
What matters to university, of course money matters; tell you what else matters, students.
The quality of people coming out of our schools, how prepared they are for university.
Our universities have an interest too in seeing kids get a great education.
That's why we are asking universities to contribute in the way that we announced on the weekend.
Now, I understand why if you're a university chancellor or a vice-chancellor you would be puzzling your way through all of these figures and thinking about what it means for your university, of course.
But if you broaden the landscape and say, what is right for our nation, moderating growth rates universities to get not only today's 3.5 million kids a better education but to get the school system, funding system and improvement system right for decades and decades and generations and generations to come then I think it is fair to ask unis for this contribution.
HOST: Back to the chance of success here or not the Queensland Premier has described the funding model that you've put forward a mirage. He also wants this offer put on hold until after the September election.
States like WA don't think you'll be the Prime Minister after September and see no reason why they should sign on.
It makes it harder to seal any deal here, the proximity to the election and the polls.
PM: Surely it's not too much to ask people to put kids first.
It's not too much to ask people to put our nation first - our nation's future and the strength of its economy.
Wherever we are in the political cycle, whatever political party ticket people have got in their wallet or purse, surely it's not too much to say to them the most important thing for our nation's future is the quality of education in our classrooms today.
So instead of looking at political atmospherics look at the reality.
Do we want kids to have a better education? Do we know what resourcing that takes? Do we know that there are schools that don't have that resourcing now and should we fix it?
They're the key questions and they should all be answered yes.
HOST: The point is, you may have a plan but today's Nielsen Poll shows a primary vote for the Government of 29 per cent for Labor.
With polls like this you won't be able to deliver your education funding plan.
PM: Well I certainly have a plan and I'm very focused on delivering it.
We have polls, one a week, sometimes a couple a week.
HOST: None of them are good lately for you for a long time.
PM: My focus isn't on the numbers in that poll, my focus is on the numbers which add up to a school funding system and a set of improvements in schools which means I'll be able to look at NAPLAN results, at national testing results and see numbers going up for achievement in reading and writing and maths.
And know, as Prime Minister of this country that we're not only treating every child fairly and giving them the education that helps them realise their full potential, that we are going to be the economy of tomorrow that has the high-skill, high-wage jobs because we've got the people with the capacities to fill them.
HOST: Looking at the polls, not just today but over the last weeks, months, over the last year or more, you can't have much hope of winning the next election.
Will you be broken-hearted if the election comes, you lose and this education plan goes to dust?
PM: Fran, the election will be on 14 September, there will be a very clear choice at that election between me-
HOST: But not a close choice by the looks of it.
PM: Fran, let's leave until election day the choice for the Australian people and pay them the respect of saying in their millions they'll make their decision as they go into polling places on election day.
There will be a clear choice then for people on election day between me, seeking a mandate to lead a majority Labor Government with a clear plan for the future, or the negativity we see on the other side of politics.
That will be the choice on election day.
But there are choices before that and there is one coming up on Friday and that is how much we value our children and how much we are prepared to invest to be a strong economy tomorrow or whether the future of our country will be slowly languishing with lower and lower growth rates and less and less skilled jobs and lower paid jobs as we watch the countries of our region zoom past us because they have been prepared to invest in their schools, they have been prepared to get their kids a great education.
HOST: Prime Minister, you've received a free character assessment from your former cabinet minister Simon Crean. He says you have tin ear when it comes to sound policy advice. What's your response?
PM: I'm not going to add to any of that debate and it's not what my focus is on today.
HOST: Is Simon Crean now doing what he accused Kevin Rudd of doing, destabilising?
PM: Fran, my focus isn't there, my focus is on the things that will matter, not only next year but 10 years from now, 20 years from now, 30 years from now.
That's this change to school funding.
HOST: Prime Minister, finally on Friday this program spoke with one of the hunger strikers inside the Melbourne detention centre. Now, for one week, 27 mainly Sri Lankan men have been refusing any food. Most of these people have been locked up for three years or more.
Is it beyond us as a nation to find a better way to manage this other than locking refugees up indefinitely without a chance to defend themselves?
PM: First and foremost Fran, what we do is we have proper assessments to see who has a genuine refugee claim and who does not.
HOST: And these people are being assessment as genuine refugees.
PM: And we have proper assessments on security grounds too. Both of them need to be done, both of them need to be abided by and you do not change your circumstance as an asylum seeker or a refugee with an adverse security assessment through hunger striking-
HOST: They've said they've been locked up for three years.
PM: And Fran, we've got duties and obligations to the nation here in terms of properly assessing who's a refugee and making appropriate security assessments.
HOST: Will we find a way to manage this and allow these people outside eventually of the detention centre?
PM: Well Fran, I've said to you how we've got to balance these things and weigh them for the nation and of course making sure that people are genuinely refugees and that we've got a proper security assessment process is right for the nation.
That's what we do and it is not changed, no one changes it through the personal conduct like going on a hunger strike.
HOST: Prime Minister, thank you very much for joining us on Breakfast.
PM: Thank you.