The Coalition's 'Mandate'... (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

It seems quite interesting that a great deal of change has been proposed yet not much of it was made known to the wider public (or at all) at any time throughout the election campaign... Nelson's university reform statements from today's papers come to mind.

What do you all think? Agree, disagree, etc?

 

[neo o]

I'm not sure what exactly youre referring to because I didn't grab a paper today (Damnit, no more school and no more free SMH ). But I'm familiar with the reforms that he proposed last year.

Basically, the entire reasoning is that the public can only be exposed to so much, and the public can only understand so much. It needs to be kept nice and simple i.e.: National Security and Interest Rates and broad, sweeping issues such as Health and Education and radical policies within both those fields that will insight some sort of response.

i.e.: Labor's stand on private school funding, Medicare Gold etc.

University reform would just go over the heads of most, and those interested know about it anyway.

Both parties marketing groups know what is best to bring up, well apart from Labor with that Costello thing

 

[Generator]

Here's the report:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11259040%5E601,00.html


If only we all read through the fineprint... My only problem is that it seems as though the Government remained in office through a back to basics campaign yet they may well use the victory within the Senate to push through more 'comprehensive' reforms than in the past. I know that there is only so much that should be publicised within a campaign, but the victory strut of many Ministers is kind of worrying.

 

[neo o]

While the senate becoming a rubber stamp is a concern, it also reflects the wishes of the electorate. - and this term of government promises to be one of the most reformist terms of the past 50 years. Issues such as the full privatisation of Telstra and the full implementation of the GST, which the Senate has blocked out of its own political interest as opposed to the interests of the Australian people now actually may be passed, though I believe the government said that they don't have any immediate plans to push the privatisation bill through the Senate as of yet.

In regards to voluntary unionism, I love the idea. If unions are concerned that noone will pay union fees, then obviously the services the unions provide aren't wanted anyway.

(And I'm sure they will survive anyway.)

 

[loquasagacious]

The issue that is being raised is that the Australian people did NOT vote for this. The government does not have a mandate for this.

I respect that the government went to election to get a mandate of the GST I despise that the recent election was not made a mandate on the buildup of locked legislation eg: sale of telstra, university 'reforms' and others, about twelve double dissolution triggers from memory.

 

[saladsurgery]

yeah, here's the herald article on it:

SMH
States may lose control of unis
By Orietta Guerrera
Canberra
November 2, 2004


Australia's universities would become the sole responsibility of the Federal
Government under a radical plan for states to surrender higher education
powers.

Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson says he has already had informal
discussions with "senior people in one or two states" about Canberra taking
full control of universities.

Discussing the plan in an interview with The Age, Dr Nelson accused the
states of treating many universities as like "quasi" government departments
and of restricting their ability to work with the private sector.

Under existing arrangements, the Commonwealth is responsible for public
funding of higher education, but states retain a key role in running
universities.

If the changes went ahead, Canberra would take over responsibility for
appointing board and council members. Universities would also be audited by
the Commonwealth, and have their financial reports tabled in Federal
Parliament.

Dr Nelson's proposal comes amid a wider debate on the division of powers of
state and federal governments.

NSW Premier Bob Carr has suggested states hand over control of hospitals to
the Commonwealth in exchange for control of schools and technical colleges.

Under the Australian Constitution, education is the responsibility of states
and territories, but in 1974 the states agreed to transfer public funding of
higher education to the Commonwealth.

The idea of handing over the remaining state powers over universities was
raised by the NSW Government a fortnight ago. The state's Education
Minister, Andrew Refshauge, said the Commonwealth already exercised "de
facto control" of universities through its funding, while universities faced
two layers of accountability.

Yesterday Dr Nelson said the idea had "merit" and he would write to state
education ministers proposing they meet to discuss the proposal. "I'm not
prepared to engage in any debate about who should or shouldn't take over
hospitals," he said.

"But as a stand-alone issue, if you want high-quality internationally
competitive universities in this country, it is a prescription of long-term
mediocrity to have one tier of government responsible for their enabling
legislation, and another primarily responsible for policy and funding."

Victorian Education Minister Lynne Kosky said she would be apprehensive
about handing over university powers, but said the Government would be happy
to discuss the plan with Prime Minister John Howard and the other state
premiers.

Ms Kosky said what Dr Nelson was proposing was only "tinkering on the
edges", and that Victoria would like talks to include a broader package of
transfer powers including schools and vocational education. "They can't just
cherry pick what they want," she said.

Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee chief executive John Mullarvey said
he believed there would be little support for the idea among
vice-chancellors. "I think they would be concerned about putting all of the
powers both for funding and additional regulation all in the hands of one
body," he said.

In other comments yesterday, Dr Nelson ruled out further university fee
deregulation, saying he would not increase HECS fees or the number of local
full-fee students allowed in a course beyond the changes that take effect
next year. "We've already implemented a limited fee deregulation, I do not
propose to go any further than that," he said.

Dr Nelson confirmed that the Government would reintroduce legislation to
lift restrictions on individual workplace contracts and casual employment in
universities, and to abolish compulsory student unionism.

The Government was forced to abandon these proposals to get its higher
education package passed last December, but from July 1 it will have the
Senate majority it needs to pass the changes.

In a win for the vice-chancellors, Dr Nelson reassured them that an inquiry
into the indexation of government grants to universities would proceed, and
the Government would move to scrap unnecessary red-tape on universities.

He also said he would submit a proposal to Cabinet to remove the $50,000 cap
on loans available to local full-fees students.

(my emphasis)

 

[ohne]

Nelson tried to get this legislation through in the last term but a lot of it was blocked by the senate. Now the coalition controls the senate heshould be able to get it through. Anyone who follows politics at least remotely would know Nelson's position relatively well.

Personally I don't really care what happens here. I am a strong believer in the states rights and I have always associated the coalition with being the party of the states rights so plans to take over some responsibilities from states is disappointing in my view. In my opinion the states should have full power over universities.

I don't really care about student unionism. My union has never really done anything to me, however I think universities themselves should be able to decide about unions rather than government legislation banning compulsary membership.

I strongly support plans to push through individual agreements for staff as it will likely lead to better quality teaching, better staff and more reward for hardwork.

Not sure about other elements, I will have a look at them in detail.

 

[ohne]

While the senate becoming a rubber stamp is a concern, it also reflects the wishes of the electorate. - and this term of government promises to be one of the most reformist terms of the past 50 years. Issues such as the full privatisation of Telstra and the full implementation of the GST, which the Senate has blocked out of its own political interest as opposed to the interests of the Australian people now actually may be passed, though I believe the government said that they don't have any immediate plans to push the privatisation bill through the Senate as of yet.

In regards to voluntary unionism, I love the idea. If unions are concerned that noone will pay union fees, then obviously the services the unions provide aren't wanted anyway.

(And I'm sure they will survive anyway.)

Queensland ALP Premier Peter Beattie said today "This is where control of the Senate has gone to their head," "I mean they need some checks and balances - they're now out of control."

- Ironically the Queensland parliament does not have a senate/upper house, it was abolished by a previous Labor government.

 

[Lexicographer]

Universities are national educational institutions. While schools usually try to appeal to students from their own area (suburb, city, state) universities need to compete with other universities across the entire country (and world). Giving jurisdiction over them to the states would further limit their ability to maintain competitive standards. States shouldn't have control over universities.

However, I am very disappointed with the government, the opposition, and the electorate. The Government never once mentioned their education plans during the campaign (excepting TAFE like institutions). Though they love to claim that they are pushing student-supported reforms, it is clear that giving publicity to their plans would have cost them seats.

Labor didn't say a word either, despite the severe blows they could have dealt the coalition with the education issue. Plenty of tertiary students vote, and even more have parents that vote. Most of these parents care even a LITTLE about the future of their children, yet Labor failed to give parents a reason to vote against the coalition. Labor also failed to provide a viable portfolio of alternative policies to the government's. They disappointed all and sundry with their halfwitted Medicare Gold (which could only have swung the senile) and turned those with an interest in health away.

The electorate, to be blunt, are a pack of selfish retards. Rather than looking further into issues such as international policy, human rights, education, health, and the environment, these idiots were swayed by tax cuts and the economy. Who CARES about the economy when your children will be saddled with debt, stripped of their university student services and robbed of a workable public health system? I'd be willing to accept half-witted Medicare Gold over what we have coming now.

Thank goodness I'm in a Science degree. At least I am comforted with the knowledge that my field's primary employment is overseas.

 

[thorrnydevil]

Queensland ALP Premier Peter Beattie said today "This is where control of the Senate has gone to their head," "I mean they need some checks and balances - they're now out of control."

- Ironically the Queensland parliament does not have a senate/upper house, it was abolished by a previous Labor government.

Exactly what I said.

 

[Ziff]

Exactly what I said.

Yeah, but in a Unicameral system they have other ways of keeping those checks and balances through Parliamentary Committees and so on.

The upper house was abolished in the 1930s and it was meant to be abolished in ALL Australian jurisdictions by the Labor governments of the time, however, only Queensland followed through with this.

Interestingly, the reason for the current senate system is because of the Chiefly Labor government, knowing they were going to lose to Menzies, adopted the new system which allowed a lot of their MPs to stay in parliament raking in the $$$. No one bothered to change it after that because it suited the MPs of both sides too much - eventually leading to the Whitlam quagmire. Yet, still no reform.

 

[loquasagacious]

I support the moving of all education to federal government control (along with many other things, but thats for another thread another time).

However I vehemently oppose both the letter and the spirit of Nelsom's 'reform' package, I think student unionism is important however by far the biggest concern for me is the workplace 'reform'. Banning strikes forcing AWA's, strikes have only ever been banned during war (and then rarely) and when Australia had no protections for employers, is that where we want to be?