The problem
Education is increasingly seen as a privilege, not a right in the current economic system. Education has a cost, and it is getting more expensive as time goes by. Where education is made available, the quality is generally not of a high standard and/or not enough people are being taught the essential human knowledge needed to solve world problems (including the personal ones like, "How do I grow food?" as well as global ones like, "How do we repair our environment and become productive again?" or "How do we create new technologies to solve the energy problems?"). Any other education tends to be in relation to performing jobs needed in economies but this often costs a considerable amount and only accessible within universities, preventing those who can't afford the education as needed to perform those jobs to do without (and few people want to have a debt to pay off if the government did provide a loan). Even if we don't have or know the knowledge needed to solve problem, people are not given the skills of how to educate themselves so they can improve the existing knowledge, become more innovative and come up with new knowledge and ideas, and recording the knowledge to help other people looking for solutions for the same or similar problems.
Trends supporting this view
Education focused on controlling population in under-developed nations
As the Report on negative effects of population control on Africa from the African Caucus, 12 April 1994 (sponsored by Population Research Institute) said:
"African nations are forced to accept as a precondition for funding, family planning and all its attendant projects — abortion, contraception, sex education etc. A lot of money is expended by Western agencies, particularly Planned Parenthood of America, on contraceptives for Africa... In villages where there is no portable water, no electricity, and no health care services, the major concern of these world population control agencies is not development but family planning clinics."
Evidence that R-wing governments in developed nations don't want creative thinkers
R-wing governments are particularly notorious for frowning on creative thinkers in society with new and practical ideas about how to solve big global problems in a more permanent and environmentally-friendly way. Instead, the governments favour more narrow-minded and short-term economic solutions with little if any long-term benefits to the environment or the long-term survival of the human race, and often with the least investment (or none at all) to get off the ground.
UPDATE
9 May 2004
The Australian Federal (Howard) Government deserted virtually all original and creative scientific research efforts that would have helped to solve many world and personal problems through a reduction in funding, in making future funding unpredictable for two years for the world-class CSIRO and various universities, in getting the CSIRO and universities to select a few commercially viable research projects needed for a healthy Australian economy and give the Government another chance of being re-elected. That has lasted a few years, and now the Federal elections are looming once more (in October 2004) and the Government has suddenly seen a massive need to inject an extra $305 million for the CSIRO in the remaining mainly mainstream "ready to commercialise" scientific projects over the next seven years. Timing could not have been better. The only problem is, the funding is not for supporting long-term solutions to solve world problems such as renewable energy technologies or new environmentally-friendly transportation systems. Rather, it is for "commercially saleable" projects of any kind. So more of the old ways of doing things with just a little more ruthless efficiency, and the rest to help boost the export trade of the Australian nation just to make the government look good in its fiscal management of the country and as needed to win votes from people who are focussed on the importance of saving money.
As further evidence in stopping creative thinking, in a discussion paper from the Australian Federal (Howard) Government on the current education system at universities, it suggests the government has a concerted agenda to reduce the freedom of academics in conducting original "long-term" thinking research work and force many of them into purely teaching positions within very specific subjects which the Government and current businesses would approve. As Labor's Kim Carr said after reviewing the discussion paper and the proposed bill for research-intensive universities:
"This is telling you what you can study, what you can teach, and what you can think." (1)
Carr describes the proposed bill as the most draconian legislation since the Menzies Government attempted to ban the Communist Party.
To make this proposed bill a reality, the Federal Government's Education Minister Brendan Nelson and former Workplace Relations Minister Tony Abbott had to tie extra public funding for universities to individual workplace agreements known as Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) designed to force staff, academics and researchers to perform to the standards and in the specific subject areas required by the Federal Government. As Vice-Chancellor Roger Dean of the University of Canberra (UCAN) had expressed his thoughts on this:
"[The agreements are] very invasive, intrusive proposals, which are far more extreme than what was promised by Dr Nelson who has somewhat misled us over phraseology and emphasis.
It is more logical that we wait for further clarification [on these agreements]. I would prefer to negotiate on known income flows [UCAN may receive up to A$2 million in public funding if it follows the Government's workplace reforms] rather than insecure predictions." (2)
Never mind, given the way an increasing number of people in management are running Australian universities these days (i.e. like a business), we can be sure the people running the universities will agree to anything if it means getting extra funding for their universities.
As for students looking to help maintain the current economy, they can be assured of a wide range of 'government-approved through careful public funding' courses to keep them preoccupied so long as they find a job at the end of the day and can make money for the economy.
Nothing like following your own dreams as so many parents would like to say to their children. With the way things were heading under a R-wing Government, perhaps we should change this to, "Follow the dreams of the Federal Government my son because this is where you destiny lies in society". Has amazing overtones of the infamous Stars Wars villain known as Darth Vader? Yes, the dark side of the force is with the Government!
UPDATE
6 September 2013
A new R-wing government has entered Australian politics and it looks set to make the old Howard government look more L-wing compared to the new government. Under the leadership of Tony Abbott, already it is going for immediate cut back and control of funding to the Australian Research Council (ARC). As Chairman of the Coalition, Jamie Briggs, commented:
"The Coalition would look to targeting those ridiculous research grants that leave taxpayers scratching their heads wondering just what the Government was thinking. Taxpayer dollars have been wasted on projects that do little, if anything, to advance Australians' research needs." (GNN: "Coalition to cut ARC funding for LGBTI an Culture Studies if elected". 6 September 2013.)
The first place the Abbott government will target are those research projects that are "impractical" and will not make "a profit to the economy" (or would hinder business expansion and hence greater profit and thus more jobs, such as climate change research) as well as those areas that do not align themselves to the religious views of the government. For example, Labor Senator Kim Carr revealed one area where funding will be removed:
"40 per cent of projects vetoed by the Coalition from receiving Australian Research Council grants involved researching issues relating to sexuality and the LGBTI community.
"Thirty per cent of projects vetoed by the Coalition from receiving Australian Research Council grants involved researching issues relating to women's rights." (GNN: "Coalition to cut ARC funding for LGBTI an Culture Studies if elected". 6 September 2013.)
Among those considered high on the list to receive serious funding cutback (or termination as the case may be) are research relating to human sexuality (especially among gays and lesbians), the arts ,and the humanities. However, this can include any kind of original scientific research work that requires creative thinking to come up with better and broader long-term solutions, as well as climate change research. If the research work can't provide immediate economic benefits, these projects are likely to suffer from a lack of financial support.
So where does the government think the money should go? Apparently the Abbott government prefers funding be redirected towards medical research. As Briggs stated on ABC 24's Ashley Hall during an interview:
"We want a strong research culture in Australia, particularly in relation to medical research, but looking at the sexuality issues in Islamic Egypt, with an Australian Research Council grant, is extremely questionable at best."
Sounds like Tony Abbott wants to live forever like one of those Egyptian pharaohs. Instead of building pyramids, the priority is now on medical research. Mind you, medical research is important (if it benefits all the people at the lowest cost), but creative research is just as important in advancing science and coming up with original new solutions to solve many problems. And sometimes one needs the arts and humanities to expand our creativity.
So how does one ensure a balance? Clearly balance is not on the agenda of Mr Abbott and his colleague at this present time.
As Catriona Jackson, chief executive of the science and technology peak group STA, said:
"Australians should ask: Do we want politicians picking and choosing which grant proposals deserve funding? Scientists and research funding agencies understand that governments set priorities for research and that this is entirely valid given we do not have the resources to fund everything.
Priority setting is very different from political picking and choosing. Only a quarter of research grant bids that go to the ARC each year are successful. Only the best of the very best get through the very careful peer review, expert-driven process." (GNN: "Coalition to cut ARC funding for LGBTI an Culture Studies if elected". 6 September 2013.)
Yet such a rigorous approval process by the ARC has still managed to allow certain projects in the arts and humanities to get funded. It means there has to be a good reason for it. Yet the Abbott government still wants to have further control by picking and choosing the specific projects it deems suitable for funding because it thinks some projects are "ridiculous".
It wasn't that long ago when the former Coalition Minister for Science and Research, Dr Brendan Nelson, was picking and choosing projects as he specifically rejected nine projects whose research issues related to various aspects of homosexuality and culture. Now history is expected to repeat itself and in a bigger way. The government has very few public utilities it can sell off. It means funding cut backs today will be more severe.
As Carr added:
"The ARC has rightly enjoyed bi-partisan support for decades. Its competitive, merit-based assessment processes should not be called into question.
This shows it's not just climate change science that's under threat from the Liberal thought police. Research into culture, language, the arts, social science, or anything they don't like and regard as 'wasteful' is threatened, and this is on top of their pledge to re-invent the history curriculum.
The suggestion that Ministers should pick and choose what fields are worthy of study is absolutely abhorrent to intellectual integrity, rigour and independence.
This is a return to the John Howard approach where only politicians could decide what was "good" knowledge and what was "bad" knowledge.
There is room in the budget for all the sciences. Humanities and creative arts research takes up a mere 11 per cent of ARC funding, with the majority going to science, technology, engineering and mathematics research. You really have to be desperate — or ideologically driven — to throw the Arts onto the savings pyre." (GNN: "Coalition to cut ARC funding for LGBTI an Culture Studies if elected". 6 September 2013.)
If the projects are really so ridiculous to the government, why don't we put the projects up on a web page and let taxpayers decide where they want their money spent? Make sure the web page is set up by an independent and reputable body, publish the title names of all projects and a summary, and let the public vote for the projects they consider to be worthwhile. The more votes a project receives, the more funding it should receive.
Evidence that R-wing governments want skills training as the only form of education to help support the economy
There are too many students to educate in public schools and universities, so the Government reduces funding to the institutions with the ultimate aim of fully deregulating the entire education system.
A reduction in funding is just a start. There has to be incentives for people to do the "right thing" from a R-wing "L-brain" point-of-view. So the Government will do things like reduce student numbers by introducing a special education fee such as HECS (a form of tax) for each student to pay, and later raise this fee after several years until only a handful of the richest and elitist students are able to go to university (and hence students will be selected based on how much money they have rather than how smart and/or original their thinking is in certain disciplines). The rest, mainly the poor and disadvantaged, will just have to fight it out among themselves when surviving the job market or consider joining the Defence forces and be ready to die for your country. It is as simple as that.
There is some hope. If the jobs needed for the economy are in plentiful supply but the demand for those jobs are limited, the Government may provide extra funding in the early stages for those courses able to realise a profit and hence an immediate commercial benefit to the economy, thereby reducing course fees and encouraging more students to enter those courses and gather the skills needed for the economy. These courses include studies in economics, law and certain areas of physics such as photonics (and nuclear energy) to help build new technologies in the telecommunication and energy industries. Any other courses having no immediate commercial benefit will have to find ways to commercialise their ideas in the short-term or disappear (i.e. go underground). Afterwards, once the surviving courses find a way to make a profit, the Government will cut back on all funding to universities in a few years time.
This will eventually force all universities to raise the cost of available courses in areas needed to support the current economy to a level where only the richest can afford.
UPDATE
18 October 2003
The latest proposed reforms for the Higher Education Bill courtesy of the Australian Federal (Howard) Government via the Education Minister Mr Brendan Nelson has unveiled during a Senate inquiry a piece of controversial legislation allowing universities to run courses with 100 per cent full-fee paying students (now considered the sixth highest export earning industry for the Australian economy). The purpose is clear: the Federal Government ultimately wants to improve the bottom-line by cutting back on all university funding. Of course the Government is extremely careful to say this piece of legislation is merely to remove "inappropriate courses" from the universities.
Sometimes the Government will want to be a little more subtle at how they reduce the number of students attending universities and where they should go (and hence less burden on the Government to fund a number of university courses). Either because students at this level are potentially very smart and can see through what the Government is doing, the Government will focus on indirect psychological means of reducing student numbers like compulsory new entry and exit exams (which are often seen by prospective students as stressful), rising entry scores, and fewer 'creative broad-thinking' courses where it is difficult to see an immediate commercial gain for the Australian economy.
Another subtle technique from the Federal (Howard) Government concerns looking at the positives of deregulating education. There would no doubt be choice for students and parents. A funny kind of choice actually. As schools attract fee-paying students to certain courses and curriculum activities, students and parents will have the choice of becoming the next Donald Trump in a private school and maybe one day university, or get bugger all education. This is supported by the results of a study conducted by education researcher Professor Barry McGaw. As McGaw discovered:
"Australian 15-year-olds perform relatively well, but disadvantaged students are left further behind in Australia than in some countries." (Patty, Anna. Schooling choice leaves poorest to struggle: study: The Sydney Morning Herald. 8-9 July 2006, p.5.)
The reason is quite simple. As McGaw put it:
"One of the reasons that socially disadvantaged students perform poorly is that they are often enrolled in schools with a high concentration of similarly disadvantaged students.
They tend to have low educational aspirations and expectations. Worse, their schools often reinforce this by offering less demanding subjects. These students would benefit from being in more mixed company.
If we were willing or able to achieve a greater mixing of students in our schools, our high performers would not suffer, our poor performers would do better and our national average would improve." (Patty, Anna. Schooling choice leaves poorest to struggle: study: The Sydney Morning Herald. 8-9 July 2006, p.5.)
In other words, it is because the Federal (Howard) Government wants a two-tier education system favouring the rich and forcing those parents to get rich to attain the same education for their children or else students drop out and get a low-paid job or make do with less and potentially lower-quality education while mixing with similarly disadvantaged students learning the same education. Such a system is considered by McGaw to be in stark contrast to the top performing education system of Finland where people demand a strong public education system with little difference among schools.
Unfortunately, it seems to be too late. The Australian model of school favoured by the Federal Government "allows unequal opportunity for choice, since the extent of choice is related to capacity to pay." (Patty, Anna. Schooling choice leaves poorest to struggle: study: The Sydney Morning Herald. 8-9 July 2006, p.5.)
The outcome of all these changes to universities under a R-wing (Christian-based) government is probably best summed up by Professor Janice Reid of the Female Orphan School on the edge of the University of Western Sydney's Parramatta campus:
"For better or worse, the Nelson reforms will set the direction for the higher education sector for many years to come.
If for worse, it will be a retreat to an elite system like that of the post war years when a handful of universities admitted a handful of school students who may or may not have been the brightest in the land, but who were certainly society's privileged. In such a system money will talk." (3)
UPDATE
February 2004
The Federal (Howard) Government is trying to look like the good guys in the Australian community by claiming some of the money earned from HECS is being used to help low-income families to have their children attend schools and universities. This is probably true. But there is no escaping the fact that education is not very broad in scope and doesn't promote creative thinkers in our midst when solving all world problems..
UPDATE
March 2004
A growing number of people are working together to provide free education online (e.g. SUNRISE). The education, available from some locations online, is becoming broader and will go beyond the standard courseware for supporting the current economy.
UPDATE
June 2004
A large number of Australian university students are realising how much they would love to have millionaires Kerry Packer or Rupert Murdoch as a close family relative these days. Leaving aside the richer international students who haven't much to complain about except meeting the expectations of their rich parents (e.g. Asian students coming to Australia to learn funnily enough Asian studies when they could be at home learning this better in their own country), many are facing financial difficulties with a growing HECS debt and the cost of books, rental properties, and food. A growing number of students are quitting university studies to find a job or start a new business of their own (usually at home). Other students are willing to sell themselves as sex slaves or appearing in lingerie catalogues to help make ends meet.
This latter situation is supported by Melbourne researcher Dr Sarah Lantz when she claimed in June 2005 that 10 per cent of all sex workers are made up of students. (Bellamy, Elizabeth. Financial problems shackling students: The Canberra Times. 18 June 2005, p.7.)
Now the Eros Foundation has come forth to support the claims with a spokeswoman saying a survey was conducted several years ago revealing a figure closer to 15 per cent instead of the 10 per cent of sex workers being university or senior school students. Now she suspects the figure is as high as 25 per cent given the high costs of education today:
"I think that figure has increased. I'd put it as high as 25 per cent." (Lord, Gillian. 25pc of prostitutes students, says sex industry: The Canberra Times. 25 June 2005, p.1.)
A young lady going by the name of Silk at Northside Studios in Canberra is suggesting an even higher figure when she said:
"We currently have about 16 girls on our books. Of those, about seven are uni students who have been with us over a year. Another three are school students, over 18 years of age and finishing Year 12. It's very common for us to have school or uni students." (Lord, Gillian. 25pc of prostitutes students, says sex industry: The Canberra Times. 25 June 2005, p.1.)
If this statement is true, it would represent a figure closer to about 60 per cent although one would assume this figure would have to vary slightly from brothel-to-brothel. But still, this is a disturbingly high percentage.
One such student who can actually speak from experience is 19-year-old Hannah, a Year 12 student at a prominent Canberra school. She confirms the reason for entering the sex industry is almost entirely because of the $1,800 debt she has managed to acquired through education and wants to pay it off. Earning between $800 and $1,200 per week, Hannah says she can pay it off in a matter of a couple of months and then concentrate on her studies. Compared this to the low wages from retail and fast food chains and she could be working for 12 months or more to pay off the debt and it might affect her grades.
Hannah said:
"Mum and Dad see it as a profession. Dad doesn't have a problem as long as I save half of what I earn. I do it for the money, to help pay for the extra courses I'm taking. My teachers are not fine with it, but they are supportive and help me with my schoolwork and make sure it gets done on time." (Lord, Gillian. 25pc of prostitutes students, says sex industry: The Canberra Times. 25 June 2005, p.1.)
But does it affect the students by the experience? Kate, another sex worker aware of the student situation, said:
"Often they are the more successful workers because they are working for a set period of time and they are definite about their motivation. The girls who are adversely affected are those who feel they have no choice, single mothers or drug addicts, for whom prostitution comes second to something else." (Lord, Gillian. 25pc of prostitutes students, says sex industry: The Canberra Times. 25 June 2005, p.1.)
Kate is also prepared to say some students work privately than in a parlour. So exactly have many students actually resort to sex for money may be harder to determine.
Brian Johnstone of Leura, NSW, tried to put a positive spin on the debt and the situation some students are finding themselves in when he said:
"I think student debt is a good idea. It shows students what their future adult life is all about, only earlier." (The Sydney Morning Herald: Early financial lesson (Opinion & Letters). 23-24 April 2005, p.30.)
No doubt he is speaking from a position of authority and experience by being a student himself in today's climate. Somehow we think not.
Anyway, drinking at university bars is already seen as another long-held and somewhat necessary Australian tradition for some university students. We can now see why.
In summary, the future for public universities under a R-wing government will be privatisation of education by stealth with no original creativity in research.
Because, in the words of Australian Education Minister Brendan Nelson, "I think education is a privilege". This official statement was televised in the ABC documentary program Four Corners on 27 June 2005.
But as Sally Longhurst of Parramatta said:
"In a recent episode of Four Corners, when asked if he thought of university education as a right or a privilege, Dr Brendan Nelson said he thought of it as a privilege.
'The Macquarie Dictionary defines privilege as something available to someone "in a favoured position". By this definition, university education is a privilege in that it's available to those who demonstrate the academic ability to study at that level.
'Tragically, the current Federal Government's restrictions to university funding, and the hefty fees imposed on students, are making university education something available to the privileged — those who have the financial means to gain a tertiary education.
'A university education is the right of all members of our community. Aren't we the lucky country?
'Why, then, should people who have the academic skill, but aren't wealthy, miss out?
'Had it not been for the financial assistance granted to university students by the Whitlam Labor government, my siblings and I would not have had a university education. Our family could not have afforded to pay for one child at university, let alone three.
'We are on our way to becoming a country in which only the financially privileged will be able to study at university, and that is a great injustice." (The Sunday Telegraph: Uni shouldn't be a question of money (Your say). 10 July 2005, p.88.)
However, we should also add that not having the academic ability does not mean you are not given the right to a university education. Because if we support every human being, the academic ability will come to everyone. Some people only call university study a privilege because not everyone is supported to achieve great things.
University study is no different from self-education, private research, research and development in a business or the works. Universities are designed to train people to think more critically at problems and so go into greater depth until a creative and rational solution is found.
University study is no different from the studies people do in their everyday lives outside a campus.
As J.F. Quinn of Carlton North in Victoria said:
"Since 1996, the Howard Government has chiselled away at university funding, and been increasingly interventionist in the micro-management of higher education. Perhaps this is motivated by a desire to crush supposed hotbeds of left-wing activism, or perhaps it is to bring universities into line with the politicisation of other public institutions, such as the public service and judiciary. Either way, Australia is losing out." (The Sydney Morning Herald: Under attack (Opinion and Letters). 17-18 December 2005, p.26.)
However, the biggest losers of all this education will have to be the people in third-world countries. Whatever people in developed nations can learn from universities, any emphasis in teaching students to enter employment more easily is not going to solve the problems for people in third-world countries. These people need a broader and more creative solution. And if we don't help them by providing the right education, more and more people will fight over simple problems, them eventually spill out into other nations to affect the developed variety by way of extra refugees fleeing from their own nations.
Then things will cost more for governments of developed nations to handle the growing international problem.
The R-wing view to education... and the economy
Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister of Australia from September 2013, has taken over from where John Howard had left off in December 2007. Without skipping a beat, the R-wing government headed by this new leader has again found the same old excuse for cutting back funding to education, health and other social services just to ensure there is a surplus (mainly to allow the government the opportunity to buy its way into another term in office with the Australian people and so hopefully reinforce its R-wing stance, and top up super savings for politicians). And this time, not even older Australians relying on a government pension will escape the budget cuts.
The excuse is by way of Australia's Federal deficit of AU$63 billion — the Australian people are led to believe it is too high. Well, this is how Mr Abbott likes to see it. So high, apparently, that Mr Abbott and a number of his ministers had been claiming of an emergency situation requiring every taxpaying Australians receiving an income to pay a newly introduced annual $400 tax levy starting in 2014 for the next three years designed to help pay off the deficit (or perhaps the Australian people should see this as paying back the government with interest the $900 received from former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in 2009 during the global financial crisis). This would contribute a little over $4 billion per year, or $12 billion by the end of Abbott's first term of government. Not a lot of money, but every contribution is welcomed by Mr Abbott (as if expecting to receive free donations from the public to fix an allegedly economically life-threatening situation for the government). Mr Abbott tries to puts a positive spin on this by saying it is only temporary. By the end of his current 3-year term, in theory the levy should disappear (cough!). Yeah, right. Is that another one of his election promises he will break in his next term in office?
And what is this talk of an emergency economic situation for Australia? Are we in such dire straits that we cannot erase this debt by any other means? Or is this country truly devoid of creative solutions for implementing in the real world and exporting to the world? As far as this "emergency" talk is concerned, Mr Abbott clearly hasn't visited the United States, Japan and most other Western nations to know the meaning of the term "deficit". Those countries have a considerably greater deficit to make Australia look like it has nothing to complain about. Just another day in the government office whiletrying to run a country. In fact, we are doing much better than most countries (with perhaps the exception of Sweden). If the current Australian Prime Minister still cannot figure this one out, we should have Paul Hogan in Crocodile Dundee saying to Mr Abbott, "That's not a deficit; now this is what I call a deficit" as he lifts up the current account deficit paper from the U.S. Congress. Nothing like putting some perspective on this financial matter. As for eliminating this deficit, Australians have the ability to get themselves out of this deficit better than most countries through business and individual incentives and lower cost education. Yet Australians are made to look like idiots in not being able to come up with original solutions and sell them to the world (beyond the simple selling off of iron ore, coal etc.).
"The budget Australians have to have", says Mr Abbott.
Then suddenly, as if Australians didn't hear properly what was said by Mr Abbott and his ministers, after the budget of May 2014 was announced, the Abbott government went quiet on the "emergency status" of the deficit. Huh? So is Mr Abbott now claiming the deficit is not as bad as he had made it out to be to the Australian people? Is this yet another example of a broken promise and trying to make dummies out of the Australian voters? Or perhaps a rather poor choice of words?
One must presume the same "poor choice of words" had slipped in Mr Abbott's mouth before the Federal election in 2013 when he promised no new taxes. Now it is May 2014 and the only slight problem for Mr Abbott is that he wants to introduce a new levy to help pay off the deficit. The Abbott government doesn't like calling it a tax. It is just a temporary levy as Mr Abbott would like to emphasise. Call it what you will. A political donation to Mr Abbott's party? That could be another reasonable interpretation. But giving money to the government is still a tax.
Eventually we see Mr Abbott came around to the idea that the levy really was a tax. Then he had to explain why he had to break his promise of not introducing extra taxes by claiming that he didn't know how big the deficit was. Well, we all had an idea there was going to be a deficit considering the extra spending by the previous government had helped to buffer the Australian people from the worse of the global financial crisis. Now that Abbott has caught up with the rest of the population of what we already know, it is time to do a little saving (or rather, consider the idea of exporting new and innovative solutions to the world in return for extra tax revenue).
However, the idea of introducing a levy is not a particularly good one at a social level. The biggest problem concerns those people who need the money more than the government to survive, let alone have the confidence to achieve great things for this nation. Consequently, the levy is not popular among most average Australian voters considering this is a new tax Australians should not have to pay. The way to solve deficits is getting Australia to become the clever country. This means to educate the people, encourage them to generate new ideas, build prototypes, and sell new products to the world. But not so for the Abbott Government. Funding cuts to education is the order of the day (the Gonsky Report's recommendations for education funding will only last for the next 4 years and afterwards there is nothing left in the Federal education budget), and this includes the loss of 420 jobs and $111.4 million from the CSIRO's 2014-2015 budget (not to mention those organisations such as the Australian Research Council focused on Clean Technology research, marine science, preventative health solutions, and practically every other sciences, totalling $1.2 billion of science budget cuts across the board). In fact, the cuts to education (and health) are so severe that Federal money to assist the State governments in this area will disappear in four years time with no plans afterwards to create new Federal funding in these areas.
Speaking of health, we hear it is also facing severe budget cuts. In fact, the State government are claiming the funding cuts will start to kick in from 1 July 2014 resulting in hundreds of hospital beds in every state to close down. Not a good election winning decision from Mr Abbott. But then, Mr Abbott is already in government and says he is not intending to be popular with his decisions. Fine. Be unpopular as he likes. Just show some balance through an effective and unpopular R-wing decision. Need a clue? How about the idea of funding education and research to sell new ideas and products to the world? R-wing people would hate this idea and may not win Mr Abbott any extra votes from the rich R-wing people. But if he did so, at least Mr Abbott can continue to claim his decisions are unpopular while being fair at the same time to all the Australian people.
Apparently this is not to Mr Abbott's liking. Rather, he just wants to save money for his government while everyone else has to deal with the deficit. In that way, at the next election, he can claim what a great government he has, and a great "economic" leader he is. And all at the expense of not being called a great "social" leader.
It is starting to look that way with information suggesting Mr Abbott wants to unload the Federal deficit problem on the State governments and let them independently manage all aspects of health and education as well as force a discussion and get agreement across the board for major tax reforms. In particular, the aim of this "unloading of the Federal government's problem" to other people seems to be to raise the GST rate from 10 per cent to 12.5 per cent (raking in an extra $13 billion per year, or $16 billion if proposed new GST laws should include fresh foods into the tax equation, raising the total GST earned by all the State governments of between $64 and $67 billion). However, the State governments need $80 billion to pay for education and health (approximately 50 per cent of this money goes to each sector, and about 80 per cent of the $40 billion to education is for government schools). To put it simply, the Federal government is using this deficit opportunity as a ploy to get State governments to strongly consider raising the GST rate. It is the only solution from the Federal Government. But even if this could happen, this is not going to raise enough money to cover the costs of health and education for all states. It looks like the State governments will need to broaden the tax reforms to include all aspects of the tax revenue raising system to see exactly where the inefficiencies exist and fix them.
There is going to have to be some discussion by the Federal government with State governments to figure out an alternative way to raise the funding. No choice for Mr Abbott.
If Australians could get themselves out of Australia's presumed economic woes (you would swear from Mr Abbott's rhetoric that the Australian economy is on a life-support system and on the verge of collapse if we don't do anything) by any other means, they would be best to stick their heads in the iron ore in Western Australia and export it to China. But even here the Abbott Government has given back so many concessions to the mining companies and abolished the mining tax that not even the selling of minerals in the ground to overseas buyers is going to assist the nation to get out of the deficit. The money to pay off the debt will have to come from the new levy and the cuts to education and health, together with changes to the social security payments for young people needing to survive until they find a job or any sort or decide to pay for an education.
And it doesn't matter if Australia needs more agricultural scientists or some other needy skills for Australia in the coming years. People will have to pay for the rising costs in education, especially in universities. No financial incentives for people to choose the right areas unless you are lucky to get a scholarship. In fact, a number of universities are indicating the cost to students will rise by at least an extra 30 per cent upfront, and then the long term extra costs in terms of HECS/HELP fees and the interest to be paid will kick in (or should we say a kick in the teeth of all Australians wishing to get an education?).
And all this just to pay off the nation's deficit just to keep Mr Abbott and his government happy.
Do Australians have a lot of choice in paying off the debt? Not really given the way the Abbott government has forced the bitter economic pill to be rammed down people's throats (although the rich will have a bigger throat to swallow the pill more easily so they won't complain while the cash continues to roll in).
The levy is not popular, made worse by the fact that Mr Abbott recently approved the payment of several billions of dollars for new fighter jets for Australia's defence system (specifically 12 radar-jamming Growler Super Hornet fighter aircraft and even these are somewhat sub-standard in the quality for the money being spent together with expected extra costs in the coming years to fix up certain quality control issues, not to mention a further $10 billion added to the Defence budget this year compared to the previous financial year) and a pay rise for politicians just two weeks before asking Australians to go with less social services, pay more for education and health, and pay for a new levy just for the sake of paying off the deficit. And then Mr Abbott declared to the Australian people that politicians will do their bit to pay off the debt by freezing any further pay rises for the next 12 months (life must be tough being an Australian politician these days).
Defence chiefs must also be having a hard time. They have been asked to make it look like they are doing it tough with some restructuring in the Defence organisation, to remove so-called "duplicate" jobs. Perhaps a necessary thing considering it is possible the Defence budget will not be raised for a few years.
And the worse thing of all is the cutback to education. Seriously, what kind of cigar was Joe Hockey smoking outside Parliament House when he conjured up this budget plan? Must be special ones from Columbia he imported on one of his secret missions to South America.
If paying off the deficit is suppose to be so important, why drop funding to education? This is the first thing you shouldn't do. Because education means ideas, and ideas become new products and services. Export them and you have the deficit under control in next to no time. So shouldn't the Federal government be providing incentives to businesses and individuals to not only become the best educated in the world, but also support new ideas from Australians who have educated themselves to find solutions, create new products from the ideas, and ultimately new industries for exporting the future solutions to the world? There are a lot of things we could be exporting right now. But first, as the manufacturing sector shrinks in size and people are looking to perform new types of jobs, education clearly has to be a must. A no brainer surely. Yet TAFE colleges are having staff numbers dropped substantially, and university costs are going up dramatically, and the HECS/HELP debt will increase with the new expectation that students are expected to pay off the debt sooner and at a higher "compound" interest rate just as a presumed added incentive to go out there and get a job before the debt gets too big.
Somehow something is just not right.
But hold on! The Federal government has seen the "light" in one particular area of research it feels compelled to provide funding. And it is not holding back on the support for it too. It would appear medical research will receive money to the tune of $20 billion. But strangely not in any other sector — not even the renewable industry will get anything from this budget as if the government thinks the current economic system isn't broke so why fix it? The money for medical research will come from co-payments of an extra $7 each time Australians visit a GP, a pharmacy, or a hospital. This is the beginning of the end of a universal free health care system. The money will then be invested and the interest earned will be used to fund the research indefinitely (if Australians want a reasonably well-paid and stable job in this economic climate, go for medical research).
Heck, we might even find a medical cure for Mr Hockey after smoking all those cigars.
The Abbott government is doing all it can to make this co-payment idea look good by claiming more than 10 visits to the GP for the same medical issue will no longer attract the extra $7 per visit payment. How nice. There is a heart somewhere in this government (still yet to be proven through medical research though). But do tell how low-income old-aged pensioners and those younger people working in low-paid jobs who need medical services how to cough up initially an extra $70 to meet these co-payments? And don't expect it will be just $70; it is likely to cost more than $70 if it is not for the same medical condition (hopefully within the same household, or else it will cost more per individual).
So why the incredible emphasis on medical research and no other area (well, apart from defence, which is now being made to look like it is having a hard time balancing the financial books under the current economic climate)? It is almost as if these high almighty pharaohs, or should we say politicians, are keen to live forever using whatever "you beaut" medical solutions are found in the future. Or perhaps the government is more interested in finding ways to keep older Australians in good health to continue working and supporting the economy until they are 70 years of age (the new retirement age as of 2014, although by the time young and middle-aged people today reach their seventies, the goal post will be pushed further away to 80, or why not 90? In fact, bugger it, might as well make death the retirement age just to keep the current economy going).
Perhaps Mr Abbott sees medical research as the only way this country can make reasonable money through exports of new drugs and other medical technologies (at least we won't see a brain drain in this area compared to other science areas where people are compelled to go overseas to find international organisations and governments willing to provide investment for their new ideas)? So much for Mr Abbott's confidence in building other alternative industries and helping people to be trained for them.
For Mr Abbott to be called a Christian and believing in Christian values, where is the faith in the Australian people to come up with original solutions? Or has God deserted Mr Abbott on this aspect?
As for the young people, it seems the government is taking on the view that every one of them are dole bludgers. So they have decided to remove the Newstart allowance for people aged 25 years or younger for the first 6 months. This is presumably the government's way of kicking the backsides of the young into employment. The alternative, of course, is to get young people into serious personal debt through education and training if they feel a need for skills, knowledge and the confidence to do the jobs (and decent ones at that too to help pay enough to cover the rather high cost of living in Australia and the education debt to the government). Or else see how long the young can stay at home with their parents, or start selling their bodies for sex or marry rich business people, while young men either join the Defence forces or turn to crime as an avenue for survival.
Yeah, that's a really smart decision. Do they teach this kind of thinking in those private schools where many of these politicians in the Abbott government come from?
Again the Abbott government tries to make this decision look good by claiming Centrelink, the government department handling social payments, can make decisions in special circumstances if the young people can explain and convince the department that such measures will create unnecessary hardship. The kind of convincing required is probably of the order of someone dying on the front steps of the Centrelink offices, or to walk in smelling bad, torn up dirty clothes, unshaven and undernourished. Beyond that, the Abbott government is claiming the changes to social welfare and disability payments is merely to simplify the number of different payment types while ensuring no one is worse off.
No one will be worse off? We will see if this true.
Treasurer Joe Hockey might think this budget is good economic policy, but it is bad social policy when it comes to helping the young people.
And if we all haven't paid enough to the government, an increase in the excise on petrol (i.e., another tax) will presumably help to build better roads for Australia. Huh? So what have Australians being paying for decades through their petrol? Consumers have been told the money raised in the excise tax is suppose to go toward building new and better roads (unfortunately no new fast super trains between cities or some other cheap form of public transport once the infrastructure is built that would be clearly better for the environment — again another example of no long-term vision for Australia by this Australian Federal government). In reality, we find that at least 30 per cent of the tax is used to fix and build new roads, and the rest is siphoned off to various areas as the government of the day deems relevant (probably means having enough money in the coffers to splash around at election time). And now, consumers are asked to pay more tax by way of a levy for the deficit, and the excise in the petrol purely to prop up the roads to a higher standard and build new roads to transport more cars and trucks around the country. Not good for the environment, but heck, who cares about it when the deficit is presumably too high.
The hike in the petrol excise will be highest for people living in the country and west of the Great Dividing Range. Not a lot of country people will be celebrating this new tax initiative from Mr Abbott and his partner in crime, Mr Joe Hockey.
As for older people, their pensions will not rise to meet the cost of living. Under the Abbott's plan, pensions will rise more slowly. Combined with a loss in concessions and the higher cost of health and it will not be surprising to see a growing number of older people paying more with their meagre pension and finding it harder to make ends meet (i.e., food on the table). The Federal Government is probably hoping many older Australians will be rich, or sell their homes and move into a tent somewhere in the outback, and preferably suffering Alzheimer's disease by the time the next electron comes around. Because that will be the time when the government will somehow magically find the extra money once again to help these voters make the right decision (let us guess, through the extra taxes we have to pay? Well, yes. Nothing like financially supporting your local R-wing party at the next election and not have a long-term vision for a country to show for it).
As for the rich earning more than $180,000, they will only have to pay the levy. But it will be a tiny blow to these people compared to the young people, retirees, and people living in the country.
And the Abbott government claims this is a good budget (makes us wonder what a bad budget must look like — in fact, why didn't the government cut back more seriously so we can pay off the debt quicker?). Well, it is good if you are rich, but bad if you are not.
Let's face it, if all taxpayers have to pay for a new levy (and even a higher petrol excise), there should be at least some kind of choice. Here is a recommendation for the Abbott government (not that we expect Mr Abbott to listen if the views of the State governments and various members of the public are anything to go by):
- Taxpayers should be allowed to choose where the money should go by writing "X" in the checkbox(es) on the income tax form relating to specific area(s) they deem important for society, whether it be social services such as education and health, environmental issues such as whether there are new renewables solutions just over the horizon that we can implement in the next few years, or economic aspects such as paying off the deficit (if people, especially the rich, feel inclined to give a financial hand to the government in this regard) or providing financial incentives to businesses and individuals to create new businesses and industries (but not defence, thank you very much).
- So, if taxpayers have to pay $400 in the debt levy, people can choose, say, $100 to pay off the deficit, and the other $300 can be directed to the more socially useful services. If there are 10 million workers, that's $3 billion every year to support, say, education etc. If taxpayers want all of the $400 spent in education, that's $4 billion per year. Certainly nothing to sneeze at in this climate of tight fiscal measures.
With all the other cutbacks expected to take place, including the paltry politicians' pay rise freeze for 12 months (this really ought to extend for as long as the deficit remains, if not longer should Australians think their pay packet is too high until it is seen by everyone of some truly visionary and long-term decisions that can be considered positive improvements to society), there should be more than enough money to pay off the deficit in less than 5 years. Perhaps in less than 2 years if incentives are provided to people to create new businesses and form new industries ready for exporting high-tech products to the world. Or if the mining tax was maintained by the current R-wing government, probably less than 18 months giving the profits being made by the mining companies selling iron ore to China (apparently the profit is $30 million per vessel carrying the iron ore to China, and everyday there is at least 10 boats arriving and leaving Western Australia, so you do the maths).
But if not, then let average Australians decide where the money acquired from the new levy should go. In that way, the R-wing government can't continue claiming there is not enough money to pay for education or other social services (especially since Australians are now required to work longer).
UPDATE
27 May 2014
Stratasys, a digital manufacturing company, has come forward to show an example of innovative research and development that will help to transform certain existing industries. The technology involves getting a 3D printer (mainly used to create static 3D objects) to combine different types of plastics and fibres to create new types of materials capable of changing shape when they come into contact with heat, water or some other stimuli Its primary use would be in textiles where clothes could be designed to fold in a compact way, but unfold to fit perfectly the body of its wearer or include a series of tessellating segments. It will also be useful in the aerospace industry where skin-tight metallic suits (using fine metal threads) are needed by astronauts. Or the technology could be used in medical research to design new organs for the human body. Just as Mr Abbott would want to see.
UPDATE
2 June 2014
Instead of funding science (there is not even a Minister for Science in the Abbott government just to show where the current priority lies for the Abbott government when solving the economic problems), Mr Abbott is happy to provide $248 million to champlain care for children in schools (we should be shocked Mr Abbott has not yet approved a Minister for Religion). State governments can pay for secular and properly trained psychologists to do this job if schools need them.
Another extraordinary decision from a man who should know better.
Well, if this is the way things are going in Australia, it won't be long before Mr Abbott believes exporting religious beliefs to the world is going to help Australia get out of debt. More Bibles anyone? In fact, shall we ask the scientists to build Noah's Ark II and put two of every animal species inside when the sea level rises sufficiently in the next 100 years thanks to global warming and the expected accelerating emissions of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere as we speak? Would Mr Abbott like the boat to be powered by coal while the scientists are at it too? Let us guess who will want to play the part of Noah in the new boat: Mr Abbott. We can be sure he will fit the part perfectly (if only he grows a beard...and some wisdom too).
It is almost like Mr Abbott is driven by marketplace ideology and have not consulted or discussed any aspect of the proposed budget or his plans to anyone. Not exactly the sign of a good leader, especially with his limited experience in the position.
It could also be the fact that Mr Abbott and his close knit group of disciples (or should we say government ministers) feel immune to the way the Australian Constitution has been set up. According to the Constitution, there should be a separation of Church and State when making decisions, except Mr Abbott and his ministers must think "State" means "State Government". In other words, the Abbott Government has interpreted this in its own unique way as not saying "Church" and "Federal". Therefore, the Federal Government sees nothing wrong in combining the two while it is in power and making decisions for the Australian people. If this is the kind of interpretation being made, one wonders whether there is any difference between fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist muslims. Seriously, a number of muslims somehow manage to make their own interpretations of the Qu'ran and support certain types of extreme Islamic laws and later end up kidnapping girls in Africa or blowing themselves up in the name of Allah. It might be a saving grace Christians don't blow themselves up to make a point about the kind of world they want to live in, or even the kidnappings (Christians simply ask ASIO to do this job if it is in the national interest). But instead Christians will create the world they want and expect everyone else to live in it. It doesn't matter what other people are trying to achieve. If it doesn't support the Christians in maintaining power and getting rich as well as keep the current businesses going, then don't support them. Use market forces to determine whether other people can survive.
The funny and sad aspect about all of this is that Christians are meant to be the ones who should have learnt the principle of love. It is the fundamental law we all should be following. This means before doing something, make sure you do no harm. In other words, use the carrot approach, not the stick to change human behaviour, and talk to people to find out what's the right way of doing things that truly promotes the principle of love to everyone. And even so, if what people are achieving is love, why change the behaviour? Can't these Christians see love in other people, even if it hits them in the face?
We sometimes hear people say what the Christians are doing is called "tough love". Yes, and there is also a difference between "tough love" and "being cruel". In the case of Mr Abbott, it would appear that he is either unable to see the difference, or is indifferent about the difference.
NOTE: The Abbott Government emphasises the $3 billion to CSIRO over the next 4 years to show its commitment to science. What they don't say is that the funding is specifically targeted to only those areas the government deems relevant according to its own agenda. There certainly will not be funding for clean energy research or anything else that might save the planet from our man-made activities. It is only to support existing industries with greater efficiency solutions and so on.
UPDATE
5 June 2014
The CSIRO Energy Centre in Newcastle has made an important breakthrough. Although the technology has already been used in Spain. CSIRO scientists have achieved a level of energy production that will compete directly with fossil fuels in terms of costs and quantity of power needed. The technology involves directing the sun energy with the help of more than 600 mirrors at two towers housing solar receivers and turbines. What makes this special is the supercritical temperature reached with water, allowing solar thermal energy to be competitive with fossil fuel generated power (i.e., coal or gas).
As the CSIRO energy director Dr Alex Wonhas said:
"If these plants were able to move to supercritical steam, it would increase the efficiency and help to lower the cost of solar electricity.
Supercritical steam is a breakthrough for solar energy and means that one day the sun could be used to drive the most advanced power stations in the world, currently only driven by coal or gas.
The supercritical solar steam would allow power stations of the future to use free, zero emission energy."
The highest supercritical temperature ever was reached in May 2014 after water was heated to 570°C, generating a pressure of 23.5 megapascals (3,400 psi). Dr Wonhas sees this latest discovery as a game-changer for the renewable energy industry:
"It's like breaking the sound barrier; this step change proves solar has the potential to compete with the peak performance capabilities of fossil fuel sources. Instead of relying on burning fossil fuels to produce supercritical steam, this breakthrough demonstrates that the power plants of the future could instead be using the free, zero emission energy of the sun to achieve the same result."
The CSIRO announcement comes hot on the heel of major funding cutbacks to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) that helped fund the $5.68 million breakthrough research into solar thermal power generation.
So what's this rubbish from the Abbott government claiming that providing government funds to the renewable energy industry will not provide worthwhile solutions? This is what happens when Mr Abbott does not get out there in the real world and learn from the real experts what people are trying to do.
Now all we need is for a real leader with some balls (and preferable some brains too) to approve funding for education to retrain workers in the car manufacturing sector to work in this area of the renewable energy industry, and help a number of young and fully trained engineers to build the new solar thermal power generators for Australia. The only problem is, will the Prime Minister have the hindsight to back this new and important piece of technology and help Australian workers to make the transition into a new sustainable Australian industry?
The only thing remaining to solve is a way to store the energy for night time use. CSIRO and Abengoa Solar, with support from ARENA, are working on this aspect. Storage ideas from the solar thermal power plant in Spain may provide a clue. Or there is already significant evidence of an increasing number of Australian people investing in and installing in the homes an array of new, lightweight and high-powered lithium batteries to store electrical energy from solar panels placed on the roofs of people's homes. Well, here is an idea. If the solar panels don't exist for some people (naturally expensive), the CSIRO solution would provide a significant supply of electricity during the day for storage while people are at work, and when they come home the electricity from the batteries can be used to do what they need with it. Seems like a reasonable solution. So why hasn't Mr Abbott looked around the country and made this suggestion to the CSIRO?
Not enough brains in politics we hear?
UPDATE
5 June 2014
The "grim reaper of budget cuts" treasurer Joe Hockey has swung his axe in the direction of the Federal government owned Australia Post. Yet strangely he has decided not to completely sell off the asset. How odd? At any rate, estimates have it that at least 900 jobs will go as part of the government's race to re-establish a budget surplus so Mr Abbott can buy his way to another term in office with the voters at the next election. In the famous words of Australian actor Michael Caton in the movie The Castle (1997), "Tell him he's dreaming."
UPDATE
25 June 2014
Setting a rare example these days of a politician capable of listening from experts and making appropriate decisions (not like the relationship we see between Mr Abbott and the CSIRO — there is no love loss between those two at the moment) is the maverick independent billionaire from Queensland, Mr Clive Palmer. In a move that almost shocked the nation, Mr Palmer showed not only that he can listen, but he was going to be a force to be reckoned with in politics by secretly getting a big supporter of climate change from the United States, Mr Al Gore, to come down and support Mr Palmer's new environmental policy announcement. Who says you cannot teach an old dog new tricks? Great to see Mr Palmer is a willing listener and has consulted a reasonable expert in the field (maybe he should have included a CSIRO scientist among his ranks just to add a bit more weight, but of course the CSIRO is not allowed to be seen as supporting any one individual), and now it seems he came out the better for it too. Well done.
So what's Mr Palmer's solution?
Acknowledging the importance of jobs for Australians, Mr Palmer has decided the best way forward in terms of tackling the climate change issue (something for which he acknowledges does exist, which is a far cry from a number of climate deniers in Mr Abbott's own political party) is to introduce an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). He is happy to go without the carbon tax, so long as there is concrete details and evidence of an alternative system to combat the gases for global warming. What's wrong with that? Nothing at all.
The advantage of ETS is that it prevents businesses passing on the cost of a carbon tax (Mr Palmer will agree with Mr Abbott to abolish this if Mr Abbott is able to give assurances and clear details of his so-called direct action plan on tackling climate change) to consumers and at the same time businesses are more likely to preserve as many jobs for Australians as possible. Fair enough. Mr Palmer has also indicated that he does not want to see the Climate Change Authority and the Renewable Energy Agency disappear as Mr Abbott is trying to do (all in the name of saving money for his political ambitions to be re-elected — it seems to be the only thing on his mind these days). Sensible. We definitely need an independent watchdog and someone with a bit of teeth to say where Australia should be heading and what the target should be, while at the same time give advice to industry and consumers and what they can do right now to help the environment, especially in the field of controlling global warming. Great to see someone is using the grey matter between his head, and not all budgies smuggled in, say, Mr Abbott's swimming costume all the time. Although we do like to see real leaders show some balls, we also need to see brains too, and some intelligent debating and finding solutions as well as a realisation that we do need to be doing something to push Australia in the right direction. Actually get something done around here, thank you very much.
And finally, the implementation of the ETS is contingent on other nations doing the same in order for the scheme to be effective. Not so good. In other words, Australia will play its part as a good international citizen to address climate change when the rest of the world is ready. In that way, Australia will not be put into a competitive disadvantage when it comes to trade and exports. Okay, fair enough. However, more and more people in Australian society are thinking it is time for Australia to show leadership in this area by going ahead and doing the right thing and don't worry about what the rest of the world is doing. Just start exporting the latest renewable energy solutions to the world (especially those currently being developed by the CSIRO) and make it cheaper. Never mind. At least Clive Palmer's suggestion is better than Mr Abbott who we hear is still not able to give precise details of his so-called action plan on climate change and, therefore, there is a risk the weasel may make a U turn and break yet another promise as soon as the carbon tax is scrapped. The people of Australia need something more concrete and definite, with a clear plan of what's going to be done to deal with climate change. Seriously. None of this airy fairy "look like we are doing something to tackle climate change" kind of scenario when all Mr Abbott wants is to win more votes. Stop politically farting about and start to be a real leader and do the right thing for this country (and the rest of the world).
As for the ETS recommendation from Mr Palmer, the Australian legislation has already been set up to support it thanks to the work done by Labor (but just like Mr Abbott in selling his 2014-15 budget, the Labor party is also guilty of not being able to sell the carbon tax solution to the people very well). Perhaps a little more tweaking around the edges is required, or could there be a complete change? It is unclear. But one thing is certain, Mr Abbott is going to have a hard time passing his budget through the Senate. Even the carbon tax legislation itself may still be hanging around longer than Mr Abbott would like if Mr Palmer is not happy with what he is seeing of the Federal government. Never mind. Mr Abbott may not like to listen and negotiate, but now the honeymoon period after the election has ended and it is time for him to do some work. Mr Abbott will have no choice but to listen and negotiate. How painful for him.
The fun has only just begun.
UPDATE
December 2014
The Abbott Government is forced to perform more backflips on its unpopular policies than an Olympic gymnast in competition just to get the budget measures through. One of the backflips is the government's decision to scrap the $7 doctors co-payment. Well, in truth, this is not really a backflip. It is more window dressing. In reality the government will still get its money and direct it to the future medical research fund. It will achieve the money raking aims by reducing the Medicare rebate by $5 unless people can show a concession or pension card (and now includes an exemption for pathology services and diagnostic imaging services such as X-ray, CT scans and MRI). Since there are some doctors who bulk-bill all their patients, they will receive $5 less from Medicare for each consultation even if patients don't hold a concession card. Thus doctors either have to make do with less income from the government, or pass on the $5 to people who they think should pay more. Perhaps all those smokers and people who abuse their bodies and don't do anything to prevent health problems will receive the extra costs in their medical bills? Somehow doctors will have to decide whether or not to pass on the costs to patients. And if patients don't like it, the doctors get the wrath of their patients and the government escapes it all. How convenient.
On the plus side, at least the government is learning to acknowledge the fact that there are people who are disadvantaged in society and is willing to forego the collection of $5 per consultation if people can prove their disadvantage through a concession card or other identified exemption categories. If the new policy gets approval from the senates, then we have to remember that this $5 per consultation given back to the government will not make Medicare more sustainable as the government claims (unless fewer people visit the doctors). In fact, Medicare is one of the most efficient and cost-effective national health care systems in the world. This alternative policy to keep more money into the government coffers is more about reducing the number of bulk billings being made in order for the government to retain as much money as it can for other purposes.
In the meantime, Treasurer Joe Hockey has quietly claimed to the media on the same day the alternative policy was introduced that the Australian Tax Office (now 3,000 less people working there after the cut backs) has hired 60 new staff to focus on chasing those multi-national companies that excessively minimise their taxes through off-shore schemes. This is a more popular move and likely to see tens of billions of dollars in taxes raised so long as other countries do the same to control this multi-national companies behaviour. The aim is to get companies to pay the appropriate taxes on the profit achieved in the country it is made. Yet companies find clever ways to minimise the tax to pay by turning profits in a business into a cost when paying services to another company in a different country that is part of the same company and hence a means of minimising tax.
The government would be better off pursuing some of these unfair tax minimisation schemes rather than targeting the things people need such as health and education.
UPDATE
1 February 2015
The backflips keep coming. The next policy to face an uncertain future is Mr Abbott's personal favourite: the paid parental scheme. The writing is definitely on the wall and it is all looking like it was painted in "Mission Brown".
In fact, the results of the Queensland election is not looking good for Mr Abbott (it will be interesting to see all the positive spins liberal politicians will try to get out of this). Enough people in Queensland, especially the ones struggling to survive with their pensions, maintaining good health, wanting a reasonable education, people on welfare and many others, are telling their State government not to sell off publicly-owned assets. Instead, the government needs to think of ways to increase revenue without losing out on the essential benefits. No more cutting back on essential services or having them sold off to private companies. Think about new ways of delivering low-cost education and providing incentives for people to come up with new solutions.
More and more Australian are making the message clearer to all local, state and federal governments: innovate, invest and incentivise in the people and the returns will be greater than anyone can imagine.
UPDATE
9 February 2015
Prime Minister Tony Abbott survives a spill motion today. Despite a secret vote, not enough Liberal cabinet members were willing to change their leader. Part of the problem seems to be the fact that there was no one willing to put up his (or her) hand as an alternative new and credible leader. The other part of the problem is that many Liberal politicians don't like to change (and it would only remind voters of what happened during the Rudd-Gillard political era, thereby making it harder for voters to see a difference between Liberal "R-wing" and Labor "L-wing" views).
Despite surviving the spill motion, Mr Abbott claims he will change by consulting more with cabinet members (and possibly the people of Australia). He also said:
"The solution to all of these things is good government, and good government starts today..."
Leaving aside what kind of government Australians did have over the previous 16 months, how will Mr Abbott improve the situation in the remaining months prior to the next election? The 2015 budget will certainly be critical for him, but if for any reason he does not come up with sensible environmentally-friendly and hi-tech solutions showing what a clever country Australia can be and start exporting these products, Australians will have no choice but to return to the budget cutbacks. And this will mean the likelihood of Mr Abbott staying in his position is looking slimmer by the day.
Mr Abbott's future as the leader of Australia could well be terminal unless he can achieve a significant revival in his thinking and policies. Somehow he will need to change to such an extent that he would have to make Mother Teresa look like a villain. A rather unlikely scenario for a man who only knows how to run the economy of Australia in a particular way. He has been taught well by his former leader Mr John Howard. Unfortunately, he has not learned any other way to solve problems by another different leader.
UPDATE
3 March 2015
Mr Abbott has made yet another backed down in his policies. We now have a reversal in his decision to impose the $5 (was $7) General Practitioners co-payment and associated $5 cut to the rebate policy. Extraordinary. Instead, greater security is considered more important with a decision to fund more defence projects and send 300 defence personnel to train Iraqi forces and fight Islamic State youngsters. In the meantime Mr Abbott believes it is important to get legislation through the parliament to allow metadata retention for anything stored or passing through Australian servers, and then argue too much money is being spent in higher education and needs to be cut back. The Prime Minister is not seeing any budget deficit problem through defence decisions, but education is somehow seen as too expensive.
Sounds like Mr Abbott has decided he wants to make himself look good and improve his polling with voters if he is able to end the problems in Iraq and keep people safe.
UPDATE
13 March 2015
The upcoming May budget is promising to be a frugal and boring one according to Mr Abbott (except this time he will be more careful not to hurt too many key Australian voters this time around,. especially those growing numbers of people on aged pensions). In fact, he probably does not need to promise this kind of budget because we know he will deliver. Being frugal and boring is probably his government's motto in the 21st century. Mr Abbott may not be the brightest crayon in the pack, but surely he can figure out at some point that his government has to invest in the people to come up with new ideas to help stimulate the Australian economy and produce new products for the world in return for greater tax revenues that will reduce the deficit. It is not always about constantly cutting expenditure across the board. When will the Abbott government realise there is another side to the budget equation?
UPDATE
May 2015
You have to give it to Mr Abbott. He is trying. He has now started to think more on the expenditure side of the budget equation in the May budget. A good start. Of course, his only solution is to rely on small business to provide all the ingenuity and new ideas to drive the Australian economy into growth and so help reduce the deficit for the government through the extra tax revenue. Will small business be enough to make the changes and push Australia into a new economy? Most business entrepreneurs in established businesses usually do not like to change especially if they are already making a profit. So if any changes will be made, it would be more of the same to expand the businesses and employ more people, which in the end means more tax revenue for the government. This is all that matters for any Federal government. If anyone can be truly innovative, if would be the entrepreneurs starting up a brand new business. These are the bigger risk takers who are more likely to find new ideas. And sometimes those new businesses need more than just a few tax breaks on new equipment etc.
What is the solution?
Education is as fundamental as food, water and energy. It is the means by which people can find solutions and communicate those solutions to others. Education is the key to helping people solve problems of any kind. How much more can we emphasise this solution?
Costs too much? Seems to be the perennial problem for governments and people working in private industry. But why should it? Once the knowledge is there and recorded, it should not cost any more other than to access the knowledge. And that should be by way of electricity costs and the technological tools to view and listen to the knowledge. The fact that so many people with an adequate income can afford to buy a computer and access the internet (for free in public libraries or shopping malls), and those less well-off can visit places to have communal access to computers, there really should be no excuse to say education costs. It might cost if we ask teachers to re-invent the wheel and present the same knowledge in a million different ways. Even so, if at the end of the day the best way to learn is already known and can be achieved visually and through sounds through the most stunning presentations the world has ever seen, what other way do people need to learn the same stuff? Unless there is a mental deficiency in people, everyone else should be able to grasp any concept with relative ease thanks to our technology. Perhaps a little help from parents in the early stages, but later children should be able to learn for themselves.
Unfortunately, any talk of education being free would not go down well for some people. People need to be given jobs. Businesses involved in education need to make a profit. Profit and staying in power with the help of people in jobs is considered more important to governments than giving everyone a free education. It means education must be seen as a privilege, and everyone has to pay for it. Yet governments also complain of the education costs when it has to pay. So either the government has to pay for it, or let the market take over and businesses can set a price for the education that everyone must pay. However, this knowledge will eventually get known and put online for free or at substantially lower costs by others until eventually everything is free again. And where will we be? Once again facing the reality of free education so long as people know how to learn for themselves.
This is the conundrum the economy has created. Expect some people to pay and eventually with enough time, the knowledge will be free and accessible to everyone.
Let this knowledge be delivered at virtually no cost throughout the world using the cheapest, more robust, portable, and durable technology available to humankind.
What should be the topics to educate people on? The new world order will have the usual teaching of language. maths and science for developing new technologies and communicating the ideas. In the no-economic system of re-building the environment, language is important. But so too are the practical applications, through the clearest pictures and videos, of how to grow food, how to interact with human beings, understand nature and the living things in it, living harmoniously with other people and living things, using the technology efficiently and effectively to solve problems, and so on. People can also learn about the jobs being doing in the economic system. Do we need to know how to use certain technologies to get the most out of them?
Are you a visual person? No problems. Look at the videos from the best educators (from professional filemakers to 3D animation experts, and with a little help from truly professional teachers with the skills to help people to learn, and want to learn). See how easy this knowledge can be learned. Prefer to read it in text form. Again no problems. Provide the information in text form as well. Are you blind? Fair enough. We can even cater to your auditory needs. But always balance the two forms by way of text and pictures/sounds for greater effective accelerated learning of the information.
Also, get to the very essence of any core knowledge and show how simple it is to understand and apply. Do you know of a better way to do things? Great. The world wants to know about it.Clearly the education has worked for you. So share your ideas and be rewarded, because the benefits to society are too great to ignore. In that way, other people will know how to solve problems, no matter what they are.
If certain people in the top echelons of society still cannot fathom the importance of education and still expect everyone to pay for it, then you can be sure other people will apply the principle of love by making the knowledge available to all for free. Eventually all kinds of knowledge will be covered in one web site and accessible to everyone around the world.
How much does it cost to support a web site with this knowledge? Well, certainly a lot less than what many R-wing government complain is too much for education in the tradition form. And parents can save literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in HECS and HELP fees to the government and other costs to businesses, and many stressful students going through the traditional approach to learning. Let students learn for themselves from a quality education web site. As for very young people, teachers and/or parents can focus all their attention on helping them. Once students know how to learn for themselves, they won't need teachers or parents anymore to learn from. As for other countries (especially in third world countries), teachers should be paid to help them teach the knowledge and give the students and people the tools they need to access this knowledge. If all this is done right, it should take very little time to help people to understand the essential knowledge, and to give them the basic tools to access this knowledge again and again for every new generation.
At the end of the day, the education we provide to the global community should not be biased to suit the government of the day, a particular job or business point-of-view, or certain ways of living, or even to show how patriotic you are to one nation. The most important education of all is one that is open to all views and possibilities, no matter how controversial, and shows the perspective and collective knowledge of all people, and to do it all in the most fun and enjoyable way possible. Also, the more educated you are about a whole lot of essential things with some level of indepth knowledge and with creativity, the more independent you will be and eventually the less burden you will become to society and the environment. Eventually you will be the person to provide the solutions for so many people (a far cry from many R-wing politicians these days who, for some reason, cannot come up with anything original and far-reaching to help the masses for all times — it is all about maintaining the current economic system, but nothing original, visionary, and with substance to really solve world problems).
As they say, don't be the problem, be the solution. Good education has a habit of doing that with anyone. All we have to do is provide the best and most balanced education at the lowest cost possible, and show more faith in seeing the potential of the people becoming fulfilled and achieving great things once they are educated — something for which the R-wing Christians need to be reminded of everyday, especially when they get into parliament and start making some silly decisions for the people thinking that others can never solve the problems for themselves.
Some people really do need more education than others.