Back when Malcolm Turnbull’s reshuffle was announced, we had a request from Laura for a Chrissy Pyne watch. I can’t find the comment in question readily to link back to, but the LP collective memory is evidently elephantine… So, what’s young Christopher been up to? Parliament has a plethora of bills to consider in its final week of sittings for the year, and Pyne is evidently competing for the end of term sophistry prize. So outraged are the Liberal party that private schools’ funding sources might be made transparent, that Pyne has been reaching new heights of absurdity in thinking of reasons why a bill providing for $28 billion in funding for 2009 should be amended, split or held up. Apparently, requiring private schools to report on all sources of funding is akin to bureaucrats wanting to poke about in private bank accounts! (Forget any sort of transparency in governance or for that matter, accountability to parents who might benefit from some info about the real financial position when contemplating solicitations for funding or fee levels…) And they can’t be expected to deliver a national curriculum because it’s still being worked on – it’s like being asked to sign a blank cheque! Julia Gillard has a secret socialist agenda! There are actually more gems from Pyne, but perhaps you can go hunting for those themselves. Or try your own hand at making some up…
The argument about the national curriculum is quite bizarre from the mob who spent years telling us all how essential such a requirement was. But anyway…
But they meant a national CONSERVATIVE curriculum, like the one they wax lyrical about at ‘National Review’.
Not a national curriculum devised by a mad barren commie.
He’s my local member and a dickh**d IMHO.
Unfortunately the combination of a safe seat, a dearth of talent in the Liberal Party, his youth and his misplaced self belief will see him around for a long time to come. A future Liberal PM? Please God, no!
But if the Liberals hold up the bill in the Senate, the private schools won’t get the money.
Such are the dilemmas of politics.
When I heard the report on the wireless of the Libs blocking the $28,000,000,000 in non-government school funding my first reaction was, This is the conservatives saying, “fuck the Catholics, they don’t vote for us anyway.”
But then I remembered that tories in this country fetishize private school subsidies as much as some in the Old Left want them (the subsidies) done away with.
What’s up with the Opposition thinking they score points by basically withholding dosh from respectable Howard Battler(sic) families? Do they think the petit bourgeois want to sacrifice their hand-outs in order to stick-it to that renowned millionaire Labor lawyer who obviously hates them all, as it’s not as if Gillard writing a cheque for $28 Billion to their children’s schools can be construed as anything but an act of simmering class warfare?
Pyne’s a git.
BTW, I just looked at the comments thread at ABC online devoted to this story and it looks like all the pro-Pynists see the Coalition’s rationale for blocking this bill as a slam dunk, prima facie case.
‘No low-information household that sends their kids to one of the effected schools could possibly have a problem with this’ is the prevailing conservative line.
Good luck with that.
(Also, will the Opposition have to rely on Green support to carry through on this?)
All it needs is Fielding and Nick Xenophon to side with the Coalition and it’s dead.
[blockquote](Forget any sort of transparency in governance or for that matter, accountability to parents who might benefit from some info about the real financial position when contemplating solicitations for funding or fee levels…)[/blockquote]
What does the source of the funding have to do with that?
A statement of financial position (balance sheet) would be ample for that purpose, the sources of funding is irrelevant.
They ceased to be ‘private’ schools when they first accepted taxpayer funding.
It’s not in the slightest bit irrelevant – for two reasons – to ensure that the real level of government subsidy is known, and secondly so parents know how much the actual contribution they’re making to the numerous donation drives schools start is needed. I’m sure there are some other very good reasons for transparency, but I’m writing on the run. I think the onus should be the other way around – those seeking secrecy should have to justify that.
Frank Calabrese @ 6 said:
So, it comes down to which party can work over the Melbourne Assemblies of God schools’ hierarchy.
I’d hope Mr X would bar-up over ‘truth-in-government-spending’ if he’s at all true to his principles.
I am once again shocked by the hypocrisy of senior libs. They bang a drum all day long about accountability/ transparency in schools – but not for their private school mates, oh no!! Thats THE APPALLING!!
I mean, seriously, how can humans in the public eye get away with that level of almost demented inconsistency – unless the media is essentially as walkiing apology for their incoherence?
Time to rewrite this whole script – you want public dollars, you get the same accountability as public schools. Its not rocket science. Its not “controversial”.
And lets dump the idea that this debate is public v private. It isn’t – the Catholic schools are onboard wiht the government’s approach.
This is public + catholic v wealthy independent schools, who – one can only conclude – may have something to hide.
I’m sorry, but your kid ISN’T more important or valuable than mine when it comes to the distribution of public funds. You DON’T deserve or get special treatment, here.
Clear? See the Catholic school in Richmond that doesnt qualify for extra govt funds, even though half the kids are in commission? Thats the problem with the current model. SES is a class war model of funding. It has to go.
Gillard is said to be negotiating with the Senate Independents (Fielding/Xenophon) for support of the bill, which is a worry, but that she won’t be budging on funding transparency for private schools. One hopes there aren’t degrees of transparency. Maybe some consideration for ‘pet’ projects elsewhere. An ambassadorship anyone?
Christopher Pyne…the cucumber sandwich of the Parliament.
Mark wrote:
Lefty E wrote:
That argument against privacy is a dud – everyone has something to hide, but we just don’t realise it. Although I agree that accepting federal money ought to at least open up the books for scrutiny.
I’m not sure what you mean by “the argument against privacy is a dud”, David. If they are in receipt of public funds, they should be open to the same accountability protocols as public schools. There’s also clearly a desire to hide their sources of funding and the amount of funds from parents, as far as I can see. I just can’t see how they can make any sort of argument that isn’t blatantly self-interested.
So the argument for privacy is also a very difficult one to make, if the dude from Melbourne Grammar and the woman from Ivanhoe Grammar Lefty E obviously also saw on the 7 30 Report is any indication. It appeared to boil down to “we don’t want people to know we’re rich” and “it might get into the papers”.
Very interesting to see Chrissy is only representing the interests of the “top” schools and not the Catholic systemic ones in this instance. A more sensible opposition wouldn’t align itself so openly with such a narrow and evidently self-interested grouping.
I’m not defending Pyne Mark – but your and Lefty E’s arguments are a little close to “if you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to hide” which to my simple mind is a slippery slope when applied to individuals and not much better applied to private organisations.
I agree that by taking public funds the books should be open so the balance sheet is made public, but I don’t see the need to see lists of donors (for example). Imagine if the reverse was true (Pyne demanding to see lists of union donations for example). Privacy cuts both ways – unfortunately it needs to be supported even for organisations that you dislike, a little like free speech.
” SES is a class war model of funding. It has to go.”
Yes and No. The current model is based on the SES of census districts. So if you are rich and live in a low SES census district, you gain, or at least your school does. If you are poor but live in a rich SES census district, you lose, or at least your school does. That’s the Richmond example.
Among other variables, it becomes important that your ‘residence’ is in a ‘poor’ rural area (the investment farm) rather then Toorak or Clayfield. Your choice.
The whole SES model based on ‘census districts’ becomes a scam for those in the know.
Rather than use ‘census districts’ we could use actual SES location, but then again if you are smart enough to be very rich but have no taxable income, the scam would still work,
My understanding is the regulation specifically prohibit publication of individual donor’s identities – so much for that. Wanting to see the funding bottom line when the govt is putting 28 billion into supposedly private institutions is just a no-brainer. Its Public Admin 101.
And YES: it probably does will mean that wealthier schools like Kings College will lose some public funding. I wouldnt even bother shying awy from that if I were Gillard.
If that means improved educational outcomes in public and other private schools, then thats a net benefit to the Australian economy. Any government would be irresponsible to act otherwise. Those funds may well be simply wasted at present on unnecessary extra that improve no net outcomes. But – we simply dont know. Hence these changes.
Here’s Bruce Schneier on individual privacy, some interesting comments too.
I would suspect a lot of the private independent (non catholic) schools would be very wary of anybody even seeing their books. Most of them run very, very long credit periods for “good families” and debt forgiveness is not uncommon for those “good families” too. It’s surprising just how open some of those people are about not paying their fees, as if it were some kind of game. Just another reason why we don’t send our kids to them anymore.
David, I think there’s some alarmism here spread by Pyne (and the schools) – Gillard has confirmed that individuals’ affairs won’t be disclosed. If the school raised $x from donations in a year, that is what will be known, not from whom. So I don’t see privacy as an issue – the schools themselves in my view have no argument not to outline their balance sheets and the sources of their income if they wish to receive public funding. Note also that many organisations – whether profit making or not – are subject to disclosure rules. The analogy with a private person’s affairs really is a false one.
That’s right Mark – private companies, even those receiving no public funds at all, fill out tax returns, for example. The whole point of that is declaring your bottom line to the satisfaction of state, and society. Private schools think they themselves a protected species or something by virtue of being not-for-profit – when other charities receiving way less public money get a forensic latex glove up their ass these days.
Sorry guys – the gig’s up. Welcome to reality.
sorry, thats “charities” not “other charities”.
Yeah, that’s one of the examples I was thinking of, Lefty E – there are a lot of non-profit entities which receive a lot more regulatory scrutiny than the private schools are going to have to deal with.
http://www.adogs.info/pr276.htm
Mark & Lefty E – from what was reported on the 7:30 report tonight, the private schools already do report this information to the government so are already under regulatory scrutiny. The difference is the government now wants to make all of this information publicly available.
That being said, I do agree with the extra public transparency on this and other issues (student/parent feedback and results being some examples). As with school results the detail will be important to interpret correctly – eg are they going to include goods and services in kind – a donation of rowing boat. Or even a parent attending school to help with reading – is this any less of a financial donation than the parent instead donating some money so someone can be employed to read with the children?
wpd @ 17 – they could also use an assets test which would be much harder to avoid. I’d guess the reason they don’t do direct income/assets testing is that there is too much overhead involved. And realistically for an equitable system you need to take into account other things like parental education levels (children of well educated parents have an advantage over those who have little education).
Indeed, especially considering that he’s a St Ignatius old boy himself.
silkworm @ 24 quoted Australians for Defence of Govt. Schools
She must be a nun! Julia is deliberately barren becuase she’s a nun!
I’ve got a feeling the full adogs press release will tell me far less about the real issues at hand than reading this thread has.
Chris @ 25 – yep, I’m aware of that, but thanks for clarifying.
FWIW, I don’t think that the issues in comparison and compilation of information are all that difficult.
Good; it should be publicly available. Who’s been running around for the last 5 years loudly banging cans about making public school performance data publicly available (even though it IS reported to govt?). The same people now opposing this in the senate. Once again: Max scrutiny for public, minimum for private.
I’m sick of the state running interference for private schools. Its a barely concealed protection racket.
Perhaps this is relevant?
http://www.brushtail.com.au/july_04_on/address_to_scotch.html
“This speech was given by Melbourne-based popular novelist SHANE MALONEY to an assembly of boys at Melbourne’s exclusive Scotch College in August 2001. ….Needless to say his speech caused quite a stir, with some of the teachers and boys being very indignant”
And while not directly related to the topic at hand, here is a speech made by the Head Boy of a Catholic School here in WA which proved quite contrevesial when it went out Youtube, and then the media picked up on it.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24576099-948,00.html
And here is the video in question.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=UVgEXXQyfnI
Define ‘individual’ when you say individual donors won’t be disclosed? What about Corporate donors, are they disclosed?
What about someone who donates through a family trust? What if that trust has a corporate trustee?
Mark @ 28 – I think like comparing student marks between schools you will need to be careful – for example income you need to take into account capital grants given irregularly to public schools, whereas many private schools need to raise their own. So a single year to year comparison may not be valid. And as I mentioned gifts in-kind may very hard to quantify accurately.
Overall I think it will be beneficial and also make more transparent how well schools in well off areas are. I know people who donate a few thousand a year to the public schools that their children attend – schools in poor areas just don’t have that same capability for fund raising.
I have real difficulty, very real difficulty, in taking anyhthing Christopher Pyne says seriously. The combination of his thin voice and baby-face looks just don’t do anything to bolster his authority. Rather, they reinforce his lack of authority. I don’t mean to be mean, but …. In anycase, he looks like the typical nasty Liberal (even if he wasn;t a Howard supporter.)
btw, with reference to the link to National Review, the book that suggests the American Constitution came from the Iroquois is Bruce E. Johansen’s Forgotten Founders. Its a pretty boring, even obscure, tome and you’d have to be something of a specialist in US Constitutional history to even want to read it. Just sayin’.
Janet Albrechtsen in The Australian today arguing for greater transparency and accountability in the public school system:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/the_gillard_revolution/
Presumably Janet will be telling Christopher Pyne that the same princples should operate in the private school system…
or am I missing something here?
Stephen @ 32, donors won’t be disclosed. Donations will. It’s quite simple. Unless Julia Gillard has a secret socialist agenda!
Chris @ 33 – I was mainly thinking of the financials. But student marks are already compared between schools in Queensland – through moderation of selected work and scaling via tests everyone sits. I remember writing a submission to the inquiry that refined the system. It’s not perfect, and it takes a lot of work from teachers, but it’s doable.
I’m at one with LeftyE. Lets encourage the Opposition + Fielding and X to vote against the Bill. That way those damn bloodsucking private schools won’t get a cent of the money that should rightfully be going to all the needy public schools. For way too long, in mine, those elitist pricks have been making far too much hay off my taxes!
Gillard’s playing to win: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/03/2436761.htm
And weren’t the Tories backing the idea of national curricula 10 minutes ago? Weren’t they waving flags, banging drums, loudly denouncing, etc?
Oh, right, sorry, that was for public schools only. What is this, social apartheid?
The Libs education policy is best described as a protection racket.
Christopher Pyne has always struck me (not literally) as a sort of ne plus ultra of the rainbow of awfulness belonging to the immediately preceding generation of Liberal politicians – sort of like the pudding you would get if you mixed up bits of Downer and Abbott and Costello and Nelson and Jeff Kennett and their ilk, and boiled it all down to a concentrated essence of grasping, pompous stupidity. Except of course that he himself is not really intense enough to be a concentrated essence of anything in particular.
Mark @ 37 – I was more thinking about the public interpretation of the funding information having similar issues around complexity as test scores from schools being made public. There’s lots of ways of interpreting the information, many of them wrong.
Jesues, Laura. That’s the most terrifying thing I’ve ever heard.
Good one, laura.
C’mon Droo and Laura, tell us what you really think!
Great comment laura.
The bill’s been passed without further ammendment, with only prime dickhead Stephen Fielding voting against it.
Another win for Ms Gillard.
And Pynie, apparently, was ordered by Malcolm to negotiate.And break the deadlock.
There are moments I think Foetus First has less intelligence than a foetus.If I was a gambling man I’d bet very big on him going down big and in flames at the next Senate election.
Xenephon doesn’t seem to be too bad, but I’m willing to be proven wrong.
Correction @ 46.
Prattie (or should it be Pratty?) was ordered to negotiate …
Can we have a Krazy Kristian watch please? This James Bidgood idiot is clearly out of his tree further than the laughable Pyne.
A worthy successor to De-Anne Kelly, isn’t he?
Yes, yes he is Gummo.
I mean, at least that Fielding character telegraphs his idiocy like a rat on your kitchen chair. Now we’ve got the Bidgoods and Conroys crawling out like cockroaches from under the fridge. How many more of these guys are hiding in the ranks of these parties bringing the rapture and why do people vote for them?
I found the the report linked to @31 very disturbing. The administration of the school appear to quite happy to engage in the character assassination of a young man they asked to give an address and then they attempt to smear him (and the rest of the student body) when they don’t like what he said. What a disgusting group of so-called christians. The speech at @30 however was an abolute corker.
“If I was a gambling man I’d bet very big on him going down big and in flames at the next Senate election.”
Fielding wasn’t elected – he was appointed through the undemocratic practice of allowing unelected party officials to direct voter preferences.
Re Bidgood – I think he must’ve been talking to George Pell, who, during the Popefest, was a lot more subtle about suggesting we were in the Last days.
I can’t account for the relatively new breed of Xtan Fundies in the ALP, but bog-Irish Catholics have been prominent in the ALP since its foundation. And really, unless its to do with censoring sex (which is what the Internet censorship is about, I gather, and I don’t just mean the rockspiders,) abortion/euthanasia or fighting Communists (which is actually quite a lot of things) they’re not much to worry about. OTOH,they’re excellent on most aspects of education, health care, culture, unions, etc., etc., so long as it has nothing to do with sex/Communism/ foetuses and the suicidal terminally ill.
“Re Bidgood – I think he must’ve been talking to George Pell, who, during the Popefest, was a lot more subtle about suggesting we were in the Last days.”
Pell would not countenance this last days nonsense. So I not quite sure why he has been brought in on this. It just isn’t a mick conversation and not something even George would ‘subtly’ suggest.
Indeed, I think he would consider it quite loony.
Bidgood doesn’t come across as a rock chopper – more like Assembly of God or the rest of those wacky surburban, southern baptist inspired gibberers. Perhaps he was speaking in tongues?
Christopher Pyne is a moron, who makes morons cringe to think he’s included in their cohort.
Surprisingly, Bidgood has a degree in economics, yet he comes up with this lame-brain explanation for the financial crisis. It seems that everything he learned in university is trumped by religion.
Bidgood has an Open University honours degree in social science majoring in politics and economics.
Anyway, bring on the formalising of a one world government with Obama as our one dear leader and a common currency for all!
Cheers for the ‘beginning days’….pre-A.B.
Am I right in understanding that the government was forced to back down on the disclosure requirement and the bill has been now been passed?
If so, so much for an interview I heard with Gillard this week where she absolutely stated that a backdown was not going to happen: never, ever.
re Bidgood :the stuff is crazy. And I thought if you were crazy you couldn’t get elected to Parliament.
I can’t be bothered getting into a stoush, so I’m not going to go over the Pell stuff again. Suffice to say he made a very subtle allusion to global warming as a potential Act of God during the Popefest. And it was very subtle, but I don’t think I read too much into it.
I am aware Bidgood is a Fundie, not a Catholic. My comments about Catholic ALP pollies referred to Conroy.
Sans Blog,
you’ve actually got that exactly backwards. The disclosure requirements have not been altered a jot from the original proposal. It is the Coalition who has backed down on National Curriculum requirements and now the bill has been passed.
Paul Burns wrote:
Ah, c’mon Paul. Surely there’s a mega-stoush to be had on which grouping of religious Australian pollies bring more of the crazy. Is it the Abbotts and Conroys tortured little Catholic souls interfering with decision making, or is it the happy clappers and their unique direct connection allowing them to act as prophets like Bidgood and Fielding? Or perhaps even Howard and Rudd’s wide streak of social conservatism that busts through their otherwise unflappable demeanour when that old-time methodism comes up against drinkin’ and dancin’?
It’s pious death match time! Conscience vs. Prophecy vs. Fire and Brimstone in the “my god is better’n yourn” arena.
Thanks, Tigtog. It’s nice to be wrong in this instance!
DR,
Orright.
When, during the Popefest, Pell was asked if he believed in global warming (as people seemed to think he might be a climate change denier while Benny was a climate change believer) he said something like “There’s more to it than that.” If my memory serves me right.
Now my brain is and has been highly attuned to Catholic nuances even though I’ve overcome the brainwashing I was subjected to from birth through to my teen years (when I discovered theatre and Marx, in that order), and I thought this was a little bit eschatological – the theology of the Last Days – Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse – world consumed by fire rather than flood because God promised Noah he’d never flood it again, and left us the Rainbow as a reminder of that promise, etc.
So Global Warming = World destroyed by Fire.
Though where the GFC comes in to all this, I’ll be buggered if I know.
Did someone say bring the
ruckusstoush about which religion brings the most crazy to Australian politics? Because there’s no argument to be had there. It’s Presbyterians.Holy crap Liam, why play your trump card first? What happened to the gnarly build-up involving Bob Santamaria, groupers and commies?
Paul, I had never thought of the global warming thing as death of the earth by fire, it’s an interesting angle (i.e. so crazy, somebody probably believes it!)
Although, having said that, the only truly abiding faith a lot of those overtly religious guys have in my experience is a lifelong commitment to hypocrisy. I really dig “The Devil’s Dictionary” definition of Christian
Santamaria was an amateur, brother David, as you can tell by his Movement’s position in the dustbin of history. It’s the Protestants who play for keeps, they just never get any credit because they tend to win.
I’ll give a shout-out to the pre-eminent political failure of the twentieth century though: Fred Nile of the Congregationalists (later Uniting Church). He’s almost a mascot for progressive causes: anything he’s opposed has probably become normal or mandatory.
From the Marsden article:
Heh. Some things never change I suppose. Coins and crosses. If you behave, you can have the coins in your pocket. If you don’t, they’re going on your eyes.
I almost feel sorry for Nile – frankly I’m surprised after all this time he hasn’t been discovered deeply involved in some kind of scandal. Talk about the exception that proves the rule.
Let us pray, David, for wisdom on the subject of Fred Nile’s particular nuttiness. For as Matthew said (7:7): Ask, and it will be given to you; search, and you will find.
Paul, I remember thinking much the same as you about something Pell said during the yoof event, and I don’t have the benefit of a papist heritage. It wasn’t actually all that subtle, although I can’t remember exactly what he said now.
David Irving (No Relation) @ 70,
Yeah, it really made one sit up and think, “What on earth is this guy on about.”
Liam, DR, re Marsden. He is much better regarded in New Zealand than he is here, though a new New Zealand biography – name of author escapes me – is apparently redressing the balance and painting him as a proper bastard. I say apprently, as I haven’t read it yet. I hope to buy or borrow a copy soon.
Used to be a political hobby of mine to organise demos against old Fred. He told me one day I would convert and stand side by side with him in the cause of Christ. And then somebody conned me into having a photo taken shaking his hand. I told him I thought he was the Devil.
He had no idea where I was coming from.