Peter van Onselen: Bill Shorten either ‘mislead or misread’ Gonski report

HERE is a slam dunk example of a political leader who either deliberately misled voters or simply didn’t know the ramifications of his own policy, indeed the central policy he is campaigning on.

Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten. Picture: Kym Smith.

HERE is a slam dunk example of a political leader who either deliberately misled voters or simply didn’t know the ramifications of his own policy, indeed the central policy he is campaigning on.

Bill Shorten wants the election to focus on education. Fair enough, polling shows voters see the policy area as a Labor strength and Labor are planning to spend more on education than the government.

But on Wednesday Shorten sought to use an OECD report to not only claim the moral high ground over the Coalition on spending, but to also argue the economic benefits of more education spending are immediate.

Citing the report Shorten said: “There will be a 2.8 per cent improvement straight away if we implement these changes”. He was referring to Gonski funding.

The only problem with the impressive claim is that it is untrue. As the reports author, Eric Hanushek from Stanford University states: “The 2.8 per cent is the value today of future improvements in the economy.” By future he means over the next 80 years, as the report makes clear, not “straight away”, as Shorten claimed.

Mild difference.

Hanushek also pointed out: “There is no systematic relationship between what is spent on schools and any added achievement. How money is spent is more important than how much.”

Read that last sentence one more time.

The lack of focus on the quality of spending generally, as opposed to the quantum, is a failure in the way we judge political decisions in this country.

It may be that Labor’s policy is better. Or maybe not, given the Coalition policy rewards the best teachers with performance pay.

Either way, let’s get one thing straight. When selling his education reforms the opposition leader either deliberately mislead us or he misread the report being cited.

It’s a choice between lying and incompetence. Not that he is alone amongst politicians on that score.

Peter van Onselen is The Sunday Times’ political analyst and a professor at UWA

Originally published as Peter van Onselen: Bill Shorten either ‘mislead or misread’ Gonski report