University Fee 'Reform'.

It seems Australia's Liberal National Coalition Govt. has had another policy brain fart aimed at making life difficult for the middle and lower socio-economic demographics.This time it's an attack on Tertiary Education funding and as always, they're muddle headed ideological thinking, has bugger all to do with reality. 

So here goes; in a nut shell. 

By cutting funding to the humanities and increasing student fees this LNP government is unwittingly creating more incentive for universities to enroll arts students.

My understanding is that; Currently an arts degrees is  funded approximately 50/50 between federal government and students. Which is probably around $6,000 annually. The new funding model will see federal government spend only $1000, on an Humanities degree, while students fork out $14,000. 

Therefore, one might expect fewer students enrolling. I believe this will be proven wrong.

Labor uncapped student places. About 2 years ago LNP Govt. reintroduced capping. But the cap didn’t stop universities actually enrolling more students. This simply meant, government wouldn’t  fund their share once the cap is / was reached.

With this Govt’s latest brain fart policy: An arts degrees will now effectively be 92% student funded, meaning universities will receive 92% of revenue for over-enrolling above the cap! Where as the prior system, the Universities only received 50%. On the other hand, over-enrolling a science degree, will result in 10-20% of the total being received by the universities. 

Keep in mind here - the fees are also going to be lower! 

Now consider arts degrees are low-cost to deliver in comparison to STEM degrees, which of course means - the "profit" margin for the university is greater. Therefore, it stands to reason that the latest LNP Govt. brain fart tertiary education funding model gives all Australian universities an incentive to enroll MORE humanities students to boost their budget bottom line; not LESS. 

As always the LNP haven’t really thought this part through - well, not an economic sense anyway.

No? This is about ideology NOT future economy. The supposed economic predictors are just the excuse.  

So who is this going to hurt? 

To answer, we get back to a previous point, is the students of course. 

In the USA where, no doubt this latest brain fart’s inspiration comes from; Humanities graduates have massive debts which drag out for decades. This is what will happen here.

More importantly the point most people are missing, is that this  overall shift of higher education cost  placed on the  students for the first time.

C.P Snow's, The Two Cultures.

In the USA this model was a stated and  achieved goal of the right wing in America from  1960's because they were identified as ‘ideological enemy’. Life long debt viewed as a way to prevent that ‘leftie’ ideology from being successful.

So don’t be surprised if at some future point LNP hand all that HECS debt to private companies. As we’ve seen recently with RoboDebt collection. 

It's also interesting to note, that this new model also demonstrates, that the LNP's vision of future Australia would have fewer lawyers, journalists and - ECONOMISTS..... think about that for a moment.....

This is just a continuation of the ideology which saw Howard / Abbott go after the Student Unions, and the Morrison Govt most recently attempt to destroy works / industrial Unions. 

My advice. If an individual, political party or Govt. show you who they really are - believe them. 

Incidentally if you believe the Sciences are more important than the Humanities, then I encourage you to go and read, C.P Snow's, 'The Two Cultures'. My first degree was a Bachelor of Fine Arts, but all my electives are in Sports Science / P.E, and I believe, Snow pretty much hits the nail on the head. Unlike the Liberal Party - post Hewson.

It's our ABC, not the Federal Govt.'s

It is deeply saddening to see yet another Liberal Federal Govt. attacking and under funding OUR national broadcaster, the ABC. This is another short sighted attack, in a series, by every Liberal Govt. since John Howard and is simply no longer acceptable. 

In times of crisis, such as during this summer's national bushfire crisis, OUR national broadcaster comes into it’s own, providing invaluable and lifesaving information via it’s radio services, to those without mobile phone coverage. 

When internet, mobile phone and other essential networks go down, often the only information getting through –particularly in rural and regional areas, is via – OUR national broadcaster. 

Each and everyday OUR ABC is the only network Australians trust and ratings during both the catastrophic bushfire season of 2019 /20 as well as the on going COVID 19 pandemic reflect this. 

However, our ABC is much more than a news and current affairs service. ABC Kids has, for decades entertained and educated generations of Australian children proving itself invaluable for those in disadvantaged circumstances, or living in rural isolation. For many, it begins a life long love of learning, for others, just simply exposing them to literacy and numeracy and slowing or stopping them falling behind before they've even started.

The ABC has also launched the careers of many Australian musicians, some who have gone onto international careers. The ABC has also produces world class: drama, comedy and documentaries. Which are now increasingly being on sold to commercial broadcasting services. 

During the production process, these projects employ: writers, directors, producers, actors, musicians, set and costume designers, make up artists, camera and sound operators, sound production specialists, CGI technicians and many more individuals working contract to contract. These are very people contributing to the $111 Billion, arts and entertainment sector. 

The people and industry completely and deliberately unsupported and abandoned by the Liberal coalition govt. during the Covid 19, national social distancing lock down. 

We must also question, why, during the last 7 years of Liberal Coalition govt. as funding has been stripped from OUR ABC, Rupert Murdoch has received multiple payments of around $30million for HIS Foxtel. This is money from our tax revenue, being given – not loaned, to a commercial enterprise and foreign national. The word ‘rort’ springs to mind. I as a taxpayer am utterly disgusted and angry. 

It is quite clear that, successive Liberal Party Govt. unable to directly interfere with OUR 'Aunty', are aggressively attempting to cripple this wonderful Australian institution, for which so many are dependent – the voice of Australia, an institution uniquely Australian. 

To use the excuse that ‘I don’t watch / use the ABC’ so I shouldn’t have to pay for it’ is ridiculous. I don’t have children of school age; therefore we aren’t using Australian schools. Nor does any of this household receive pension payments; however, our taxes contribute to these, absolutely essential services. 

It couldn’t be clearer. The constant attacking and crippling of OUR national broadcaster is purely political. It is ideological, short sighted and vindictive. 

It’s time OUR ABC and SBS were properly funded, with the amount set in legislation as a percentage of GDP, rather than being set and interfered with by whatever govt. is in power at any given time. 

OUR national broadcaster, the ABC is an essential public service and it is OUR national broadcaster – not that of which ever flavor of Government is in power at the time and must continue and be properly funded so, for as long as Australia survives as a nation. 

News links:
Ita Buttrose rejects Scott Morrison's claims the ABC's budget has not been cut Saturday 27th June 2020

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2020/06/09/abc-job-cuts-voluntary-redundancies/

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/abc-pushes-ahead-with-job-cuts-in-arduous-year-20200609-p550wh.html

Religious Discrimination Bill 2019: How worried should we be?

The media headlines on this ReligiousDiscrimination Bill 2019 were, and continue to be pretty hard to miss; and so they should be, because this Religious Discrimination Bill has the potential to impact every part of our lives.

On realising this, thought it was time to try and understand ‘The Bill’ – beyond the headlines, editorial and opinion pieces. The reading ended up including some pretty diverse material, (but is not limited to): Exposure Draft of The Religious Discrimination Bill 2019, including the, Explanatory Notes, and other documents helpfully provided through the Attorney General’s Department. 

Then process of comparing, Exposure Draft of The Religious Discrimination Bill 2019 against, Australian Human Rights Commission Submission to the Expert Panel (Feb, 2018), Law Council of Australia Religious Freedom Review (27/02/2018) and have also read the Anglican Church's submission to the AHRC review.

In addition to these, and media reporting, I have also looked at:

•          Australia’sConstitution (with Overview and Notes by the Australian Government Solicitor).

•          'Liberal assumptions in section 116 cases and implication for Religious Freedom' (Faculty of Law Queensland, University of Technology, Published Federal Law Review, Vol 46, pp. 113-136).

•          'Freedom of Religion as An Associational Right' (University of Queensland, Law Journal 2014 pp153-186).

•          Protecting Religious Freedom under Australian Law, by Dr Timothy Arnold-Moore (with contributions from the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne Social Responsibilities Committee), Zadock Papers, S229 & S230 Winter 2018.  

Talk about disappearing down a rabbit hole! I have also read material, distributed by Freedom of Faith, and Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), organisations and unfortunately the sticky fingers of the ACL appear to be all over the bill itself – yet still the ACL are screaming it doesn’t go far enough.

Now I am not a lawyer, just a person of curious inclination and the more I read - the more the Religious Discrimination Bill 2019, created concern and convinced me, The Bill isn’t needed at all.

Most religious rights and freedoms, being already adequately covered under a variety of International, Commonwealth and  (most) State, anti-discrimination laws (and Human Rights). What worries me most at this juncture; is any potential for a Religious Discrimination Bill, to void or override existing State laws.

                                       

In essence the Religious Discrimination Bill is an attempt for solution, to a problem, which simply just does not exist. It seems more likely this Bill is a reaction to a perceived, political problem, (or culture wars). A point reinforced on reading,

“ 13. The review was announced in response to the proposals for legislative reform to protect freedom of religion during the debate on marriage equality…” (p3 Explanatory Notes)

It is also obvious that clause 8(3) is a reaction to the Israel Folau case. The inclusion such of such clauses, are questionable. Particularly, as this case has yet to been played out in court of law. Which is the appropriate place, not a Religious Discrimination Bill.

The entire concept and proposed Religious Discrimination Bill 2019 itself seems to be part of a growing trend which sees Australian Parliamentarians tripping over themselves in a rush to enact laws which they (and often we) don’t fully understanding the future implications and repercussions of. Enacting laws without testing them, simply leads to the erosion of freedoms, and not their protection.

Human Rights are inherent rights are not granted, by the state, but must be protected from the state.

These human rights include women’s right to reproductive healthcare (and safe medical abortion). It is simply not acceptable, nor ethical in any circumstances for a medical practitioner to place his/her own religious beliefs above the healthcare requirements of a patient. 

At the very least, that healthcare provider must supply a referral to an alternate provider, particularly where they are in receipt of public monies (e.g. Medicare).  All of this also applies to and has potential consequences for couples seeking IVF treatment, women seeking contraception, or men seeking vasectomy etc.or even blood transfusion or use of blood based treatments - not just women seeking safe medical abortions !

Any legislation which, negates a patient’s medical care in such a manner, must never be enacted. Nor any law, which creates even the perception of licence to offensive views, marginalise or discriminate on grounds such as: gender, sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, non-religion, disability etc.

The potential impact of this bill is also not compatible with a harmonious work place and the ramifications for both employees and employees may well be a reduction of rights – not an increase.

Ultimately the proposed Religious Discrimination Bill 2019, fails to balance competing rights. There must be no room for Human Rights abuses in any legislation. Far better to ‘tweak’ existing Commonwealth and State anti-discrimination laws, along with introducing a ‘Charter of Rights’ into Commonwealth Law.

The conclusion - the proposed Religious Discrimination Bill 2019, is quite simply an insult to modern, plural Australian society and an attack on existing anti discrimination laws – state, Commonwealth and International (UN).

At the end of the day, tolerance and compassion must always be more important than religious opinion.  

How worried should we be? VERY ! 

Hope Not Hate

This is one of those blogs, one hopes never to write, but given the events of the last weeks, it seems unavoidable. 

What unfolded in New Zealand is heart breaking, but expected - sooner or later. What one didn't expect, was that it would be New Zealand, to put it bluntly, given the that a number of Australian politicians (and parties) in Australia have been using intolerance, hate and fear as political currency for around two decades; Australia seemed the more likely scenario. And indeed, this did turn out to be an Australian white supremacist, fueled by hate and made brave by Australian politicians normalising. 

What followed in Australia, should be of concern to all -of gigantic proportions.  The comments made by one Australian Federal Senator (voted in by a whopping 19 votes), in particular were, and continue to be...... actually, there are no words to describe the repulsion of this individual, nor the media outlets which continue to allow others like him to continue spin their bile message directly to a mass audience. The fact that, the ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority) have not revoked their licenses is truly incompetent and illustrates all to clearly the failings in legislation. 

Lets be absolutely clear - HATE SPEECH, IS NOT FREE SPEECH - IT IS HATE SPEECH. Free speech stops the moment it creates a dangerous 'Us verses Them' narrative. 74 years after the conclusion of WW2, it appears humans are too stupid to learn.

As Labor Party Leader, Bill Shorten made clear, after 50 innocent people (including children) were confirmed dead and another 12 rushed to intensive care as result of the Christchurch terrorist attack, on the 15th March 2019;

Hate speech, doesn't always lead to violence; but violence ALWAYS starts with hate speech. 

The entire history of humanity, into the present day, already provides far too many examples of exactly this.  

Regardless of the ideology on which hate speech is based, it is at its core utterly repugnant and pure evil. 

The election of Mark Latham into the Parliament of New South Wales, over the weekend - should not just raise warnings, as to how normalised hate speech masquerading as free speech has become, but also place Australian anti-terror organisations and Police services on greater vigilance, increase watch lists - if not raise their internal alert levels - considerably. Because if the patterns illustrated here continue the slaughter of Australians; regardless of religion, race, gender, age, sexual orientation will escalate, with any and all Australians becoming targets. 

So where does the responsibility rest? 

It rests with each and every individual. It rests with us: 

• report hate speech when we hear and/or see it. 

• report hate speech and content on social media, to that social media provider and to not share, re-post or retweet that content. 

• don't just rant on social media, or scream at the television or radio, when hate content is beamed into our lives - but to sit down and report it to the ACMA - repeatedly until it is taken seriously. 

• write, phone, email, twitter, facebook - every politician and party you can think of; demanding Australian Media Ownership Restrictions to be re-introduced - Immediately. 

But most importantly it rests with us, at the ballot box !  

At any and every occasion, 

Vote:  #HopeNotHateForAustralia

Vote: Compassion, Tolerance - Humanity.

Links: 

This first one, should be screaming from Australia's media - but instead...... *crickets*

• Open Letter from UK Counter-Terrorism, Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing  

 

 

• Australian Human Rights Commission 

• Hate speech, free speech and human rights in Australia 

• Human Rights Watch - Free Speech 

• "Identitarianism: The Inherently Dangerous Ideology that Influenced the Christchurch Killer" 

• New Zealand's Leader Looks To Unify Nation 

• Far Right Referrals to UK's Counter Terror Scheme Soar.

 

 

 

 

Your Questions Answered: Rowing Precinct Development.

Hello all, 

This is just a very quick Blog, on the Rowing Precinct development on North Bank, Lindsay Street, Inveresk( Launceston).

This posting is in direct response to those who've asked me questions regarding previous postings on this particular subject (and will be the last for quite a while) on this subject. I'd also like to make clear, that  North Esk Rowing Club were not aware of this particular post, at the time of it going live. 

The question I am repeatedly being asked is:  

Where would I propose putting the Launceston Rowing Precinct.

That's very simple. 

On the South Bank opposite the North Esk Rowing Club are 2 pontoons, with a long building behind it. 

This particular building and pontoons were developed and purpose built to house rowing clubs. I was built in such away that it could house - 1 or 2 rowing clubs, depending on what was required at the time. 

For some time UTAS (in Launceston it was / is UTLBC) were, some years ago, boating from one end. Until UTAS shut the club down. 

Yes. It is THAT simple. The buildings, the pontoons etc already exist. 

So pray tell, why build more, when those have are not being used for the purpose they were created? 

This current situation, the build for a new rowing precinct is nothing more than empire building and a money grab from rate payer / tax payer coffers. 

Instead, why not have an enormous green space, perhaps with fitness equipment etc , for all Launceston and visitors to enjoy? 

Any politician, or political party considering pork barrelling the proposed Rowing Precinct on the North Bank at Inveresk - has rocks in their heads and is quite happy to through money at a project which is completely wasteful, superfluous and unnecessary. 

Why replace something which already exists and is not being used for the purpose for which it was built?

As I've said, this posting is just an answer to a question I've been repeatedly asked of late. And its my intention that it will be my last blog post, concerning the Rowing Precinct at Inveresk - at least for a while. 

Many thanks for your time and efforts, in looking at and considering the bigger picture, and alternatives. 

Rowing Precinct - Previous Blogs:

State of Rowing in Tasmania.
( 7th September, 2018)

Rowing in Tasmania: Does Propaganda & Reiteration Really Work? 
( 10th September, 2018 )

State of Rowing & Launceston City Council- Update 

( 28th October, 2018 )

Still! Playing Games: Rowing Tasmania and Launceston City Council - Again. 
( 17th December, 2018 )

Still! Playing Games: Rowing Tasmania and Launceston City Council - Again.

In the last blog (24^th October) this blogger, reported some improvement in relations with Rowing Tasmania and developments regarding the Inveresk Rowing Precinct, and the North Esk Rowing Club.

Unfortunately it must now be reported that Rowing Tasmania and the Launceston City Council, are still playing games.

In October the Committee of the North Esk Rowing Club, meet with the President, CEO and Pathways (Talent) Development Officer of Rowing Tasmania. During this meeting all three members of Rowing Tasmania, clearly and unequivocally stated they did not want control or management of the piece of land behind the North Esk Rowing Club, and the Charles Street Bridge. The same statements were made regarding the lease of ground (foot print) of the North Esk Rowing Club (I’ll come back to this in a moment).

The North Esk Rowing Club, now believe this to be untrue. 

Further, at this meeting Rowing Tasmania acknowledged that the North Esk Rowing Club, had not been kept up to date on developments of and around the Rowing Precinct development – now under the management of Rowing Tasmania and that this would no longer be the case. North Esk would be added to the list of stakeholder rowing clubs and be kept up to date. It can now be confirmed that this is not eventuated and North Esk are still being left in the dark.

In this very same meeting Rowing Tasmania, also stated that no Rowing Tasmania monies would be spent on the Inveresk Rowing Precinct development. At this point, perhaps it’s time for the Tasmanian Rowing community – individuals, clubs and schools; to start asking some very serious questions of Rowing Tasmania Board and question themselves as to their faith in the board itself?

Added to all of this, the North Esk Rowing Club, now suspects (but can’t as yet prove) that Rowing Tasmania, Pathways Development Officer may have recorded the meeting; without the knowledge or consent of the North Esk Rowing Club committee.

Now back to the North Esk Rowing Club lease. Amongst all of this (potentially) dishonest conduct, the North Esk Rowing Club are still no further in it’s negotiations with the Launceston City Council regarding it’s foot print lease. Attempts have been made with relevant employees of the Launceston City Council, as well as attempts to meet with key Alderman. All yielding - naught. No meeting, no discussions. With the election over and Council elected and Council employed Officers in place, perhaps they are all feeling comfortable and secure in their positions and merely consider the North Esk Rowing Club, will like the lease holders* at the Launceston City Airport (of which the Launceston City Council are a majority share holder), Inveresk Bowls Club, Equestrians, Cricket Club and Launceston Royal Show Society; will simply roll over, give up and wait for the inevitable loss of their invested capital / major assets. Clearly they don't know Rowers - It's an endurance sport, it's in a Rowers DNA ..... 

There can be absolutely no doubt, at all. Based on Rowing Tasmania's actions to date; they are playing the long game to acquire North Esk Rowing Clubs financial assets  - particularly head lease, pontoon and building. In which case every single rowing club in the state should start worrying about their own future.

All the North Esk Rowing Club are requesting is:

• Transparency and integrity from both Rowing Tasmania, Launceston City Council and the University of Tasmania, regarding the Rowing Precinct and its development(s).  

• A 10-year or greater lease on its foot print lease (NERC owns the building on top) with the option of a further 10-year lease at the end of that period. 

• The inclusion of (and freedom to develop and control) the piece of ground between the North Esk Rowing Club and Charles Street Bridge. This is particularly important to the Club as it does not hold a lease and has no control of the existing car park next to the rowing club, nor it’s own boat park, outside it’s shed doors, nor ground to the pontoon (owned by North Esk and St Patricks’ College). It also now appears UTAS rowing have now approached both North Esk Rowing Club and St Patricks’ College to purchase the pontoon. North Esk have refused the offer and sincerely hope; and do not believe it is St Patricks’ College’s best interests to sell (and loose) control of their half. 

• The North Esk Rowing Club has been on it's current site for more than 10 years. It has run independently through out that time, from that site and wishes to remain so. Happily running adjacent to the new Rowing Precinct, but not directly part of it, nor it's management by Rowing Tasmania. Given recent developments, as described here, there is little, if any trust remaining between this club, nor it's the sports (state) peak rowing body.

In 2019 the North Esk Rowing Club will be 120 years old. In that time, it has survived fires and floods. Yet this current situation, has the potential to be it's greatest risk / threat yet; to it's assets, sovereignty and independence; with the risk coming from the very peak state body established to support the sport, and a municipal council which appears to have an appetite for compromisng and potentially crippling community groups. Every, not for profit community group in the Launceston Council Municipality should be deeply concerned.

The more we see of the Inveresk Rowing Precinct development, the more obvious it becomes that dirty games, politics and deceptions are at play.

One last thing…. A question. The University of Tasmania are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on the establishment and development of a UTAS North, Rowing Club (along with the relocation of it’s Newnham / Launceston campus to Inveresk, instead of redeveloping a perfectly good existing campus). Yes simultaneously UTAS are unable to adequately provide residency and housingto students at the Hobart campus’. Given its reliance on overseas students for income, how do they consider any of this economically viable? 

Given there is a federal election mere months away, perhaps we had all best sit back and wait for the pork barrelling to commence .......

Please Note:

It is my considered opinion that when faced with a political environment which is not being open and transparent, local media which has become nothing more than a ‘cut and paste’ from prepackaged media release(s) and with 60% of the nation’s media organisations owned or controlled by one media mogul; we have a social and civic duty to ask questions and provide information to the larger community.

If this means that I am perceived as a ‘revolutionary’, a ‘S*** Stir’, ‘difficult’ whatever else, then so be it.  This blog is my own, the opinions and thoughts expressed, are - my own and based entirely on facts available at time of writing. 

 

*Lease holders at Launceston Airport with affected leases include, Royal Flying Doctor Service and the Aero Club, both of which, as with those already listed in Launceston; are not for profit community organisations.