Please edit my oral presentation script!

[Apink!]

Context: PM Malcolm Turnbull proposed to pull out federal support for public school funding in the light of the upcoming federal election. In response to this, I decided to argue that only the states and territories should be fully responsible for funding of all schools (public, independent, catholic etc) and the federal government should not try to fund schools themselves

Persona: Premier of Victoria at the annual COAG conference


It’s wonderful to be here in the heart of Canberra today, to mark the 42nd annual COAG conference. I’m proud and honoured to address this gathering as the Premier of Victoria. I welcome everyone today – my fellow Premiers- and the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Turnbull.

I’m here to address an issue that affects all children of Australia. Some issues are too important and too urgent to become ignored midst our colourful politics while nothing gets done. This is one of them. 

For decades and until today, Australian children suffer. They fail to navigate their bright futures, trapped in a labyrinth – a complex maze of a school funding system, where schools receive funding from three different sources: State and Territory, the Commonwealth and finally, private income.

The need to produce a simpler system must be classified as our highest priority. A transparent system where only the states and territories have entire responsibility for all education funding and managing of schools must be established.
The $50 billion government spending on schools in 2013-14 was split about 70: 30 between states and territories and the federal government.

The split further varies by the school sector. The federal government funds only 13% of what is spent on government schools but 74% of what is funded towards non-government schools.

What’s more puzzling is the fact that intricacies of these deals are different between states and territories. We’re left with blurred boundaries and muddled ideas. There is nothing holistic about this state-federal relationship, only failed co-operation remains.
There are three obvious advantages of this reform.

States deliver education services. Giving them the responsibility to raise the revenue for schooling might mean they make more effective and wise spending decisions. Canberra has no capacity to overlook 9,404 schools scattered across the nation. Premiers are far more likely to be knowledgeable about schools within their respective state, and are more equipped to make fairer judgement about distribution of funding across schools.

Furthermore, it will create flexibility for states to meet their ongoing expenditure needs without turning towards the Commonwealth for support. As the funding will not be tied to grants, a constant and reliable source of money will be procured. What this means, is that schools will be able to receive consistent support.

Outside the educational context, the reform is likely to positively impact on lives of many Australians. Australians will welcome the resolution of our long standing problem of vertical fiscal imbalance and the improvement of state autonomy, as individual states have capacity to raise revenue themselves and meet the demands of services they provide.

The reform I propose will be a radical change. But it’s also innovative and progressive. I feel extremely privileged to as a premier of Australia, but also terribly responsible for the advancement of this nation. We must be in favour of our proposal for the interest of Australian people. Mr Turnbull and Premiers of Australia I sincerely ask you to wisely consider my words.


p.s. Because my persona is a politician, the speech is quite bland (and boring, not gonna lie here) Does anyone have an idea to make my speech more interesting without being too informal?

Thanks!

[vox nihili]

Context: PM Malcolm Turnbull proposed to pull out federal support for public school funding in the light of the upcoming federal election. In response to this, I decided to argue that only the states and territories should be fully responsible for funding of all schools (public, independent, catholic etc) and the federal government should not try to fund schools themselves

Persona: Premier of Victoria at the annual COAG conference


It’s wonderful to be here in the heart of Canberra today, to mark the 42nd annual COAG conference. I’m proud and honoured to address this gathering as the Premier of Victoria. I welcome everyone today – my fellow Premiers- and the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Turnbull.

I’m here to address an issue that affects all children of Australia. Some issues are too important and too urgent to become ignored midst our colourful politics while nothing gets done. This is one of them. 

For decades and until today, Australian children suffer. They fail to navigate their bright futures, trapped in a labyrinth – a complex maze of a school funding system, where schools receive funding from three different sources: State and Territory, the Commonwealth and finally, private income.

The need to produce a simpler system must be classified as our highest priority. A transparent system where only the states and territories have entire responsibility for all education funding and managing of schools must be established.
The $50 billion government spending on schools in 2013-14 was split about 70: 30 between states and territories and the federal government.

The split further varies by the school sector. The federal government funds only 13% of what is spent on government schools but 74% of what is funded towards non-government schools.

What’s more puzzling is the fact that intricacies of these deals are different between states and territories. We’re left with blurred boundaries and muddled ideas. There is nothing holistic about this state-federal relationship, only failed co-operation remains.
There are three obvious advantages of this reform.

States deliver education services. Giving them the responsibility to raise the revenue for schooling might mean they make more effective and wise spending decisions. Canberra has no capacity to overlook 9,404 schools scattered across the nation. Premiers are far more likely to be knowledgeable about schools within their respective state, and are more equipped to make fairer judgement about distribution of funding across schools.

Furthermore, it will create flexibility for states to meet their ongoing expenditure needs without turning towards the Commonwealth for support. As the funding will not be tied to grants, a constant and reliable source of money will be procured. What this means, is that schools will be able to receive consistent support.

Outside the educational context, the reform is likely to positively impact on lives of many Australians. Australians will welcome the resolution of our long standing problem of vertical fiscal imbalance and the improvement of state autonomy, as individual states have capacity to raise revenue themselves and meet the demands of services they provide.

The reform I propose will be a radical change. But it’s also innovative and progressive. I feel extremely privileged to as a premier of Australia, but also terribly responsible for the advancement of this nation. We must be in favour of our proposal for the interest of Australian people. Mr Turnbull and Premiers of Australia I sincerely ask you to wisely consider my words.


p.s. Because my persona is a politician, the speech is quite bland (and boring, not gonna lie here) Does anyone have an idea to make my speech more interesting without being too informal?

Thanks!

It's quite a nicely written speech. There's one glaring issue you need to address, however, before anyone picks it apart. Where will the states get their money from? Are they expected to raise more taxes? What happens to the money the federal government normally allocates to education, where does that go?

I feel like you need to spend some more time trying to develop your arguments. As I said, your writing is solid (I'm really glad you've written it like a speech and not an essay, so really well done there), but I don't think you've made a very convincing case for change.

Your speech should answer these three questions:

-why is federal funding an issue?
-what's the solution?
-why is that solution a better alternative?


It's really critical to convince your audience of the problem, offer them a solution and then articulate really carefully and convincingly how the solution deals with the problem you introduced.

[Apink!]

Hi Mr T-Rav,
Thank you for pointing that out. I have to agree, those points weren't very clear at all

Do you think that I need to do more research, or is it a matter of re-wording this so it's made a bit more explicit?

For example, I would say that federal funding is an issue because when states and federal government fund schools together, it creates a messy system where it's difficult to track how much goes each school. Also I wanted to say that as states significantly rely on the federal government for money, if states were capable of raising money themselves, they would be able to get a consistent source of money which means that schools can receive regular monetary support.

So the solution is states controlling everything that's concerned with funding. That would create a clear-cut system where one body is responsible for everything so we don't have bits and pieces everywhere causing confusion. Having a system where everyone takes part in funding distribution means that there no one will take responsibility if something goes wrong.

I haven't really thought about whether the states would have to increase taxes to get the money or where the federal's money would go. The money which is raised by the federal government (which was usually spent on government) could be spent on good causes like towards hospitals or something. But I haven't really thought about how states would raise its revenue. It would have to mean that taxes would be increased which the public won't like at all. I think there a major sink hole here. What do I do 

I'm sorry, but I would really appreciate it if you could clarify this for me Thank you so much for helping me out

[vox nihili]

Hi Mr T-Rav,
Thank you for pointing that out. I have to agree, those points weren't very clear at all

Do you think that I need to do more research, or is it a matter of re-wording this so it's made a bit more explicit?

For example, I would say that federal funding is an issue because when states and federal government fund schools together, it creates a messy system where it's difficult to track how much goes each school. Also I wanted to say that as states significantly rely on the federal government for money, if states were capable of raising money themselves, they would be able to get a consistent source of money which means that schools can receive regular monetary support.

So the solution is states controlling everything that's concerned with funding. That would create a clear-cut system where one body is responsible for everything so we don't have bits and pieces everywhere causing confusion. Having a system where everyone takes part in funding distribution means that there no one will take responsibility if something goes wrong.

I haven't really thought about whether the states would have to increase taxes to get the money or where the federal's money would go. The money which is raised by the federal government (which was usually spent on government) could be spent on good causes like towards hospitals or something. But I haven't really thought about how states would raise its revenue. It would have to mean that taxes would be increased which the public won't like at all. I think there a major sink hole here. What do I do 

I'm sorry, but I would really appreciate it if you could clarify this for me Thank you so much for helping me out

The critical thing to do first is establish really careful what you think the problem is. I know you said that you think it's inefficient, but why is it bad to be inefficient? (hint: less money to students and what follows from that)

Once you've got it all together, it'd be worthwhile having a look at some of the history. States did used to fund schools entirely. Why did that change? Why do governments collect so much tax and then give money back to the states to spend on things? If you understand the arguments for making these changes, you might be able to construct some arguments as to why things should go back to the way they were.
The government recently floated the idea of allowing states to collect income tax and devolving school funding back to the states. If you read up on these changes, you'll be able to find some opinion pieces about exactly what you're arguing.

In order to deal with the money thing, just say that there should be equivalent tax cuts from the federal government and that the states can choose what level to tax to recoup the money they're no longer getting from the feds. That way the states get to choose what level to tax and will deal with the political consequences of that.


Would really, really suggest having a read on some of the stuff that flew around when this was floated though. It's a really difficult area, so well done for tackling it.

[Apink!]

Thank you T-Rav
so I did some more research and found the following:

•   Prior to 1915, taxes were collected by the states only
•   But in 1915, income taxes were collected by the states and the federal government to raise more money for the Australian war effort in  WW1
•   The government decides to increase fund-raising capacity of the federal government as a war measure (1942) --> decrease that of the states --> states relied on grants supplied by the federal government

•   Some states had difficulty raising revenue necessary to fund the variety of services they provide. For example WA (1910-11) requested help from the government due to the loss of tariffs which had become a major revenue source
•   Other states started to do the same. Tasmania (1911-12) requested government grants and SA in 1920s

That is why the federal government collects all the money and distributes it to the states after assessing their need for it. It’s a need-based distribution of money to ensure that no state is in a desperate short of money
These problems are likely to become a problem again if states are to fully fund for their services.
Smaller states such as Tasmania and South Australia will have difficulty raising revenue when they have smaller population.
But this can be overcome:

Here is where  I get stuck again. I don't know how this can be overcome. The government could collect money from richer states and then re-distribute it to poorer states but isn't that a bit like the taxation system we have now? But then in Tasmania, you wouldn't need so much money to fund things as much in say Victoria...Urghghgh why is this so hard.

I would really appreciate it if someone can help me with this.

p.s. I did read some newspaper articles regarding this issue but i swear all of them are like: the proposal to give states the entire power to raise revenue is going to fail. Which is the exactly opposite to what I am trying to argue.

[vox nihili]

Thank you T-Rav
so I did some more research and found the following:

•   Prior to 1915, taxes were collected by the states only
•   But in 1915, income taxes were collected by the states and the federal government to raise more money for the Australian war effort in  WW1
•   The government decides to increase fund-raising capacity of the federal government as a war measure (1942) --> decrease that of the states --> states relied on grants supplied by the federal government

•   Some states had difficulty raising revenue necessary to fund the variety of services they provide. For example WA (1910-11) requested help from the government due to the loss of tariffs which had become a major revenue source
•   Other states started to do the same. Tasmania (1911-12) requested government grants and SA in 1920s

That is why the federal government collects all the money and distributes it to the states after assessing their need for it. It’s a need-based distribution of money to ensure that no state is in a desperate short of money
These problems are likely to become a problem again if states are to fully fund for their services.
Smaller states such as Tasmania and South Australia will have difficulty raising revenue when they have smaller population.
But this can be overcome:

Here is where  I get stuck again. I don't know how this can be overcome. The government could collect money from richer states and then re-distribute it to poorer states but isn't that a bit like the taxation system we have now? But then in Tasmania, you wouldn't need so much money to fund things as much in say Victoria...Urghghgh why is this so hard.

I would really appreciate it if someone can help me with this.

p.s. I did read some newspaper articles regarding this issue but i swear all of them are like: the proposal to give states the entire power to raise revenue is going to fail. Which is the exactly opposite to what I am trying to argue.

Really, really, really impressed with the research you've done here, well done.

Before I answer your question though, I want you to tell me why you think it's a good idea? Convince me.

[Apink!]

Hi Mr T-Rav,
I'm really thankful for all the help you've given me so far
Could you clarify your question for me? I don't know what you're referring to by "it" Do you mean, why collecting money from richer states to re-distribute to poorer states  is a good idea?

Sorry about that

[vox nihili]

Hi Mr T-Rav,
I'm really thankful for all the help you've given me so far
Could you clarify your question for me? I don't know what you're referring to by "it" Do you mean, why collecting money from richer states to re-distribute to poorer states  is a good idea?

Sorry about that

No need to be sorry! I should have been clearer.

Why do you think your proposal is a good idea?

[Apink!]

Well, my proposal to give the states the entire responsibility to fund schools are good for many reasons, but here is the main one:
- Right now, the federal government funding is highly biased towards catholic schools and evangelical schools. What this means, is that public schools where majority of Australian children receive education from is struggling to get the money they need to run the school. Hopefully, giving the states the responsibility would mean that premiers can make a more accurate judgement of which schools need how much money so that funding is evenly distributed among schools

As I said before, some states are likely to struggle raising revenue themselves. And my research did show that this did happen in the past. So I think another system must be implemented if we are to give states the entire responsibility to raise revenue.

Why I think my proposal to implement a system where the federal government collects money from richer states to help poorer states is a good idea is as follows .

Smaller states such as Tasmania will have difficulties raising revenue because they have smaller population. But, if the federal government is to collect money from richer states such as Victoria and then distribute it to poorer schools, it would even out the income tax rates of each state. For example, let's say that this is not implemented. Tasmania would have to raise tax rates to get the necessary revenue and then Tasmanians would have to pay higher amount of income tax than let's say Victorians. This could cause a major problem where Tasmanians start to move to richer states so that they don't have to pay as much tax. Obviously, this would result in bad consequences. But let's say the state doesn't want to increase tax rate. It would result in similar consequences.  Not giving poorer states the money they lack could mean that quality in the services (such as medical care and schools) between states will  vary by heaps. If Tasmania, didn't receive more money, this would mean that the overall quality of schools and hospitals would decrease. Similarly, this can result in people from Tasmania to move out to richer states, which would also create bad consequences because we don't want  Tasmania to be like, empty.

Am I right?

So, we would need to implement a system where the federal government collect money from the richer states to the poorer ones so that states can function properly.  And this system won't be the same as the previous one, because we're still giving the states autonomy to raise revenue themselves.

Did I get this right

[FallingStar]

That is why the federal government collects all the money and distributes it to the states after assessing their need for it. It’s a need-based distribution of money to ensure that no state is in a desperate short of money
These problems are likely to become a problem again if states are to fully fund for their services.
Smaller states such as Tasmania and South Australia will have difficulty raising revenue when they have smaller population.
But this can be overcome:

Here is where  I get stuck again. I don't know how this can be overcome. The government could collect money from richer states and then re-distribute it to poorer states but isn't that a bit like the taxation system we have now? But then in Tasmania, you wouldn't need so much money to fund things as much in say Victoria...Urghghgh why is this so hard.

I would really appreciate it if someone can help me with this.

p.s. I did read some newspaper articles regarding this issue but i swear all of them are like: the proposal to give states the entire power to raise revenue is going to fail. Which is the exactly opposite to what I am trying to argue.

I can give you a suggestion as to how this may work. Bear with me though, as this might get technical (and apologies in advance for the tax jargon).

First of all, If the states need to collect income tax, and the federal government does that as well, this could potentially mean that taxpayers will have to submit two tax returns: one to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and one to the State Revenue Office (SRO) of their respective states. Obviously, this would tedious. When people do tax returns, they need to keep all their records when they report their income and deductions. They need to keep them for 5 years (not sure if this is after the submission of the tax return or after the notice of assessments has been sent), and be prepared to be audited. Now, imagine having to do that twice, and having possible audits from both the revenue agencies.

So, to mitigate this red tape, you will need to delegate the tax collection roles of the two agencies named above. Perhaps you could use one agency where and allow the federal government to collects money directly from the state governments. This means that taxpayers only submit a tax return to one of the agencies (State Revenue Office) and the other could just get revenue straight off the state governments.

So far, the expertise is not in the SROs, but in the ATO. This is expected as the federal government collects most of the taxes here. In order to allow for the states to collect the majority of the tax, the expertise will need to be in the SRO.

This means that the federal government does not need to dismiss their existing one, but will need to delegate the current officers to their state offices. These officer then work in the SROs, allowing the federal expertise to get to the state governments. Then, the state governments can allow the SRO the same powers that the federal government's ATO currently has (maybe full, maybe partial depending on how you want to argue it).

If that is too complicated then:

• State fully responsible for funding themselves
• State then pays money to the federal government
• Federal government delegate Tax Office employees to the State Revenue Office

I hope that helps.

[Apink!]

Hi Fallingstar!

Thank you for your help I think that will be definitely part of my speech It took me some time, but I understand what you're saying now. Gosh, you know so much about these stuff