EDITORIAL : THE AUSTRALIAN, AUSTRALIA

Leaks reveal terrorism concern

GUANTANAMO papers show why authorities were worried.

Wikileaks documents have been paid unduly high regard by some sections of the media when the leaks have suited their particular world view. Thus when diplomatic cables revealed Australian politicians routinely met with US diplomats to discuss politics, the Fairfax press breathlessly reported "Yanks in the ranks". But when the information in leaked documents doesn't suit a pre-ordained agenda, some seek to contest or downplay the information. The truth is, of course, the information contained in leaked diplomatic cables and other documents needs to be judged on its merits.

The latest revelations are documents relating to Guantanamo Bay and, in particular, the two Australian detainees, David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib, which have been incongruously discounted by some. The documents do contain some obvious errors, but they also provide an insight into allegations and evidence assembled by the US about these two detainees.

The documents are not primary intelligence material, but rather summaries relating to each man, so clearly errors could have been made in their compilation. In fact, there is not a great deal of information contained in the leaks that was not already on the public record through previous legal proceedings and statements. The most concerning new revelation is that "under extreme duress" in his native Egypt Mr Habib had admitted to planning a Qantas plane hijacking. This is perturbing both because of the startling allegation, which Mr Habib later recanted and still denies, and because the reference to duress lends weight to Mr Habib's claim that he was tortured by Egyptian authorities.

Seen in toto the leaks explain exactly why the US and Australian authorities were interested in these men. Charges were not laid against Mr Habib and he was returned to Australia a free man. After a range of charges and extended legal manoeuvring, Mr Hicks pleaded guilty to providing material support for terrorism and served the remainder of his sentence in Australia before being released.

The Australian maintains doubts about the military commission process and the extended delays in administering justice at Guantanamo Bay. While the Australian government must maintain its vigilance on security matters, it must also do all it can to ascertain exactly what happened to Mr Habib while he was in the custody of the Egyptian authorities. 

Accounting for classroom cash

BUT good schools need much more than funding reform.

Just as clear and accurate information on teacher performance is essential to education, so sound public policy demands transparent funding of both public and private schools. As education minister, Julia Gillard provided parents with essential information on classroom performance by creating the My School website. But we still do not have a straightforward funding formula and the Gillard government was right to appoint business leader David Gonski to review how federal money for schools is allocated.
While the states are primarily responsible for public education, Canberra contributes 42 per cent of private school income, based on formulas that inconsistently apply historic and current classroom costs and a community's capacity to pay. One of the most contentious funding mechanisms assesses a school's resources on the basis of census data that shows the household incomes on the streets where students live, rather than their family incomes. This creates anomalies in inner-city areas, where low- and high-income families can live near each other, and the remote bush, where rich farming families who send their children to boarding school are assessed as if they earned only as much as their farm-hand neighbours. Another issue is the need for funding to take account of the cost of educating children with disabilities and from disadvantaged families. These are generally above the average, whether students are in private or, more commonly, public classrooms.
But, whatever changes the Gonski Review recommends, it is important we reject public education activists who argue tax money must not go to non- government schools. For a start, state funds should follow the student, and private school parents already pay hefty premiums. Just as important, quality education is not only about funding, it is also about empowering school communities. Schools where principals have the power to hire and fire staff, to reward great teachers and encourage others can outperform their peers. Such reforms, generally opposed by union officials in state school systems, can do more than additional spending that cuts class sizes by one or two students. Certainly, we need fair shares of available public funding for all schools -- but what occurs in them does not always depend on money.

Boom or bust? Mixed messages for taxpayers

SPENDING cuts are needed in state capitals and Canberra.

Budget season is upon us and the Australian people could be forgiven for being a little confused by the mixed economic messages being sent their way. Unemployment is at such an historic low that we debate how close we are to full employment, and policy-makers are grappling with measures to lure people out of their homes or away from welfare into the workforce to relieve our skills shortage. Our dollar is more valuable than the greenback, boosting our export income and generating historically beneficial terms of trade. The drought has broken across most of the continent (West Australians still look to the skies in hope), leading to a boost in the agriculture outlook. We have run out of superlatives to describe the dimensions of the resources boom, the investments it will bring and the income it will generate for workers and government revenue. Yet, for all this optimism, taxpayers are being softened up for budgetary hardship.

In Victoria and NSW, incoming Coalition governments have "discovered" budget black holes and are using them to explain the need to trim spending. In Canberra, Wayne Swan has found a dark lining even on the clear skies of the mining boom, claiming it won't generate the tax revenue of previous upturns.

As in most economic arguments, there is a grain of truth to support every claim. Premiers Ted Baillieu and Barry O'Farrell are right to look at the underlying structure of their budgets and curtail their spending to reach genuine budgetary balance. Yet some of their claims stretch the argument. Mr Baillieu, for instance, complains BER allocations for new school infrastructure has left him short by not funding the building maintenance. This is like being gifted a car and complaining about the lack of petrol vouchers. For all its waste and mismanagement, the BER program must have saved the states some capital expenditure, and the maintenance costs cannot be overly burdensome.

The expenditure side of state budgets have swollen over the past decade with public sector job and wages growth outstripping that in the private sector. This means that to structurally repair their budgets Mr Baillieu and Mr O'Farrell, and for that matter all the premiers, need to stand up to the public sector unions, particularly in the high-spending areas of health and education. Job numbers need to be curbed, particularly in non-productive parts of the bureaucracy, and wages need to be constrained to sustainable levels. All the more so because the revenue side of state budgets is increasingly restricted. The GST has the states increasingly dependent on federal funding, and that trend is set to continue, with the new mining tax perhaps removing royalty flexibility and poker machine reforms likely to reduce gambling tax revenue.

While the Treasurer might agree with the need for the states to improve their budget discipline, he must also indulge in some self-examination. He can blame some of his predicament on natural disasters and the need for GFC stimulus, but he has presided over shameful waste and locked himself into the ongoing NBN and BER, continuing expansionary spending at the same time he's looking to cut expenditure in his own budget. And, for all the talk, we have seen little real reform to improve efficiency in federal-/state relations.