|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In his more expansive moments, Kemp has claimed government school funding will increase by
$2.3 billion to the year 2000. (He has done this at least twice in Parliament - on 6 November 1996
and 25 June 1997, and on the ABC Lateline program of 5 November 1996).
This figure is simply wrong and politically outrageous. It is arrived at by taking 1996 as the base
year and calculating the difference between that and the figures in subsequent years. By this
method he claims increases of $238 m in 1997, $491 m in 1998, $730 in 1999 and $800 m in
2000. He then adds them up and uses the total of $2.3 bn! This, of course, means that the 1997
increases have been counted four times, the 1998 three times, and so on.
Elsewhere in the course of debates over the funding of schools, he uses less exaggerated but
equally incorrect figures which purport to show that the Coalition is increasing funding to
government schools, and that the increase is greater than that for NGS, or than it would have been
under the ALP. These figures use two statistical tricks.
The principal source of Kemp's figures is a table prepared by DEETYA for the Senate hearings
(Table 1 below). This is the source of the figures of 17.9% and 14.9% per student increase for
government and NGS students respectively, and of many of the dollar amounts.
Table 1
COMMONWEALTH ASSISTANCE TO GOVERNMENT AND NON-GOVERNMENT
SCHOOLS:SPPS AND ATTRIBUTED FAGS (a)
(From DEETYA Submission to Senate Inquiry into the States Grants (Primary and Secondary
Education Assistance) Bill 1996)
The following should be noted about this table:
1. It includes attributed FAGS.
This is the principle difference between government figures and AEU figures.
The inclusion of FAGS totally distorts the figures in any discussion of what the Federal
Government directly provides to schools. It has never previously been a part of the debate, and
there are many reasons why it should not be. It is used here to create large amounts of money so
that what the Federal government is doing to direct schools funding can be obfuscated.
FAGS are general grants given to the States/Territories and go into their general revenue. They
are about Commonwealth/State taxation arrangements not Federal Government expenditure on
schools.
The Commonwealth Grants Commission in its calculations attributes these on the basis of 24%
and 2% to GS and NGS respectively, and DEETYA has used this figure. However, actual
amounts can vary from State/Territory to State/Territory and year to year since they are at the
States/Territories' discretion.
The effect of including FAGS in this way is to totally distort the picture. Because GS are primarily
funded by State/Territory governments, whilst NGS are not, the effect of including FAGS is
different for each. For instance, of the $2 502 per GS student quoted for 1998, only $646 is direct
Commonwealth money, the rest is attributed FAGS, whereas of the $ 2661 for NGS, $2258 is
direct Commonwealth money.
Even more dishonestly, at the 1996 Premiers' Conference, the States/Territories agreed to assist
the Commonwealth's deficit reduction strategy by returning $1559 m of the FAGS over a three
year period. This is not taken into account in the DEETYA calculations on the spurious grounds
that there was no evidence that it would effect schools!
It is therefore clear that a discussion of direct Commonwealth funding of schools should not
include FAGS.
If FAGS are to be included, the amounts should reflect the true amount available. The Minister
cannot have it both ways.
2. The Figures will be adjusted in favour of NGS.
The SPP's are also considerably affected by two annual adjustments which are not taken account
of here and which will alter the balance in favour of NGS. The first is an adjustment given to NGS
in accordance with the Average Government Schools Recurrent Costs, which increases only NGS
funding, and the second is supplementation which affects both sectors in proportion to the
recurrent grants they receive from the Commonwealth. This therefore affects the NGS per student
funding much more than GS. (In fact a supplementation of 7.4% has already been announced for
1998 which would considerably alter the figures in Table 1).
3. The figures are not in real terms (ie they include inflation).
This is a trick which Kemp persistently uses (see below). The inclusion of FAGS and inflation
combined give the appearance of increases to Government schools which are not real. FAGS is
only being maintained in real terms - therefore any increases in FAGS expenditure are only
inflation increases anyway - another reason for not including them.
Table 2, which was supplied to the Senate Estimates Committee, is therefore a much more
accurate calculation of Commonwealth expenditure on schools. It is expressed in real terms (1996
prices) and is based on direct Commonwealth expenditure to schools. It shows how, even before
recent supplementation increases, real funding for government students from the Commonwealth
will fall around 5.5%, while funding for each NGS student rises over 2%.
Table 2 - SPP FUNDING LEVELS FOR GOVERNMENT AND NON-GOVERNMENT
SCHOOLS EXPRESSED
IN REAL TERMS (1996 prices)
(Provided by DEETYA in response to a question-on-notice from a Senate committee)
When these figures are divided by DEETYA's estimated enrolment numbers for each sector, the
real funding per government school students falls by around 5.5 percent, while funding for each
non-government student rises over 2 percent in real terms.
Source : Senate EETYA committee budget hearings 1996-97. Answer to
question-on-notice No. 52
4. Table 1 does not include the effect of the EBA.
The figures in Table 1 show recurrent funding before the EBA.
This means that the SPP's to GS will be further discounted by the EBA.
According to Budget figures this means that GS will lose the following through the EBA:
Table 3
The latest information on enrolments shows that in fact GS enrolments have increased by 8495
in 1997 not decreased as the government predicted. However, because of the anomalous way the
EBA works, the AEU calculates the EBA will still take $20 m from GS. The Government has said
that it will "only" be $11.9 m due to a combination of lower enrolment drift than predicted and
a lower net saving to States/Territories, but has produced no documentation at this stage. In any
case, the impact is only different by degree. In either scenario there will more GS students with
less Commonwealth money.
There have been no updated tables taking account of these latest enrolment figures.
5. Real Total Commonwealth expenditure on Government Schools will decline.
The money available to government systems from Commonwealth sources will decline.
State/Territory governments will still have to maintain a system which is open to all and is
accessible in all parts of Australia. Its capacity to do this in a quality way has been severely
undermined. The Federal government is lessening its commitment to the government system and
increasing its commitment to the non government system. As Table 2 shows, in 1995/96 the ratio
of Commonwealth expenditure on GS/NGS was .7, in 1999/2000 it will be .6. By 2000, GS will
receive $40 m less whilst NGS will receive nearly $300 m more.
The second trick Kemp uses seeks to portray natural increases as government initiatives.
Commonwealth funding on schools increases each year as a result of factors such as indexation,
supplementation, and increased enrolments. For instance, supplementation from 1995 to 1998 has
been 2%, 4.5% , 2.55% and 7.2% respectively. This means that total amounts increase
dramatically without any real increase in program expenditure.
Budget conventions do not normally count this as new expenditure. Kemp, however, consistently
claims such increases as funding boosts.
As an example, following the 1996 budget he issued a media release which claimed a "$167
million funding boost for schools", or an increase of 5%.
The $167 m is arrived at by simply deducting the actual 1995/6 expenditure on all schools from
the estimate for 1996/97. The total includes $73.2 m for supplementation and indexation, and
$41.5 m for increased enrolments, leaving $52.3 m "new" money. This went mostly to NGS ($26
m to NGS Capital and $10 m to the abolition of the New Schools Policy). About $12 m
(National literacy and numeracy $7.7 m and MAATS $4.7 m) went to joint programs. (There
were other minor changes, including deductions).
Following the 1997 Budget he issued a release claiming an extra $152 million or 4% increase,
based on similar calculations.
The latest claim being used by Kemp is that "Total Commonwealth funding for government
schools in 1998 is $127 m higher than it was in Labor's last year of 1996" (Hansard, 5 March
1998). This is arrived at by these same means - it is simply the difference between the actual
expenditure on government schools shown in the 1996 budget papers and the estimate that will
appear in the 1998 papers. Basically, it tells us more about the increased costs of providing
education than about the government's treatment of schools.
Often in the same release he then switches to total expenditure (rather than increase) on particular
programs, such as "the 1997-98 package features $560 m for special programs."
Another variation is to add years together, and talk about "the government's historic commitment
to provide schools with $14 bn to the year 2000" (In the last ALP budget the total for one year
was $3.25 bn, and the four year forward estimates totalled well over $14 bn, so it is hardly
historic!).
Conclusion
Despite the fact that in the 1996 election, both the ALP and the Coalition promised to maintain
current Commonwealth funding levels to schools in line with forward estimates, the harsh reality
is that under Kemp government schools are much worse off. Some measure of this can be seen
from table 4 which gives the dollar amounts and per centage increases forecast in the final budget
of the previous Labor Government and contrasts them with those in last year's Coalition budget.
Whilst not directly comparable, they clearly illustrate that Kemp is not being generous to GS and
favours NGS.
Table 4
||
HOME ||
|| About || Campaigns || Debates || Early Childhood || Environment Action || Feedback || FEUIC || Human Rights || Indigenous Education || || Industrial || International Development || Join || Media || Policy || Principals || Publications || Search || TAFE || What's New || Women || Copyright
© 2012 Australian Education Union
- Federal Office |