![Picture](/uploads/8/4/1/7/8417532/4738728.jpg)
What better way to harm that group than by making their position even more precarious through removing financial support from the government. And to do this by stealth by trying to argue that Australia's welfare system is unsustainable.
The minister Kevin Andrews has a long history of incompetence, the most notably event being the pursuit and the persecution of Dr Haneef. Andrews' incompetence costing the taxpayer millions in compensation payments. But putting that aside, what is the evidence that what Andrews is suggesting (that welfare is unsustainable), is actually true?
Peter Whiteford examines the issue in his article for Inside Story. His conclusions are:
To sum up, the data on trends in the number of welfare recipients show a prolonged fall since 1996 due to a long period of economic growth, a strong labour market, and the positive impacts of policy changes since the early 1990s. While trends have not been as positive since 2008, they are far less worrying than in North America or Europe, and they are also mild by the standards of earlier economic downturns in Australia.
The evidence shows that our main concern should be to avoid any significant blow-out in unemployment. The fact that unemployment didn’t rise to levels predicted after the global financial crisis set in means that – so far – we are much better placed to meet the challenges of an ageing population than are countries in Europe or North America. Previous increases in unemployment in the recessions of the 1980s and 1990s had very long-term consequences, particularly for jobless families with children.
The bottom line... look to save jobs and promote jobs growth, rather than attack welfare recipients. Sadly an approach that doesn't seem to be on their radar.
![Picture](/uploads/8/4/1/7/8417532/1024709.jpg)
Rather than attack workers' conditions, with their sights set firmly on penalty rates... build a more skilled and better educated workforce.
Which brings us to the dog's breakfast Pyne has made of his education portfolio. The only ideas Chrissie seems to have been able to latch on to are... Independent Public Schools, and Teacher Quality.
Firstly to the lived experience of what they do to an education system. Francis Beckett writes in Inside Story that Independent Schools are an idea whose time has passed. He bases this conclusion on the lived experience in British schools since the big shift that occured toward this program with the arrival of the Cameron government.
There are many facets to the experience in Britain, but some of Francis' key observations include:
the Times Educational Supplement looked at all the areas that were likely to have new academies, and found that most of them were affluent middle-class areas. Instead of driving up standards in the most deprived areas, academies were six times less likely to be set up in those communities.
And
Last summer, Britain’s school standards watchdog, Ofsted, compared the most recent reports for converted academies with the last full Ofsted report for their predecessor schools. Thirty-eight per cent were deemed to be worse than they were before conversion. Only 13 per cent showed a higher grading post-conversion, and 48 per cent had the same grading.
So the evidence suggests that if Australia heads down the 'Pyne Path' the experience will be that 87% on new Independent Public Schools are likely to be no better, or worse off, and that it will have next to no effect on our most disadvantaged communities and our most disadvantaged students. It sounds like an experiment not worth discussing. Certainly not a magic bullet for all that ails education, as Pyne likes to portray it.
![Picture](/uploads/8/4/1/7/8417532/4229387.jpg)
Ben Jones from the University of Western Sydney accepts that teacher quality is a very strong indicator of good or better student outcomes. Where he differs with Pyne in who is the best person to lead an inquiry into improving training for teachers.
Pyne has chosen Australian Catholic University vice-chancellor Greg Craven. A questionable choice given that the ACU accept students with some of the lowest ATAR scores in the country.
The Australian Education Union believe Craven is a part of the problem, not part of the solution. And they have stated:
Minister Pyne says his agenda is teacher quality, but in fact he is undermining standards. He wants to make it easier, not harder to get into teaching degrees.
Apparently the route to better teachers is to choose those who have not achieved high academic standards themselves.
Ben Jones points to a different direction in his article. He says
Australia does have world-class, passionate educators but sadly many leave due to lack of resources and support. Studies suggest between 25% and 40% of teachers leave within five years. Philip Riley of Monash University has said:
High early-career attrition in teaching is costing Australia billions of dollars in wasted talent, money and training.
If teachers with desire and passion are supported and encouraged to stay in the industry, it could not only improve the quality of the learning experience but ultimately prove more cost-effective too.
Pyne and Craven it seems want to keep burning through good teachers, but balance that out with keeping up a steady supply of less talented educators. Sounds like a stupid plan.
Many are accusing the Abbott government of having no plans for Australia's future. It would be closer to the truth to say that they do have plans, but all those they are willing to share with the public are completely counterproductive.
If you dig beneath the thick top layer of Abbott government generated bullshit... you just find more shit.