On this whole university funding argument... I think a lot of people are looking at it from the wrong end.

University funding is not meant to be about reducing HECS so more people can get degrees and get better jobs... it's about improving the QUALITY OF UNIVERSITIES!!!

Universities aren't just a factory to give you a degree that gives you an extra zero on your pay-check... they're actually there to generate and transfer knowledge. And they need funding to do that.

Academics need funding to conduct research, liaise with other academics around the world, improve their skills and teach their students. Unis also need funding for facilities particularly in the science and technology fields (teaching courses like mechatronics, synthetic chemistry or nuclear physics is bloody expensive if you want to do it properly!).

THEN you have administrative and service costs... stuff that improves the functioning of a university and quality of life for students and staff (basically to subsidise the fact that gaining knowledge is at the expense of earning money... few academics couldn't make more money by going into private industry).



The end result of that funding SHOULD be a high quality of universities providing knowledge (and revenue - educating overseas students is an export business for Australia) to industry to improve Australia's business performance. AND we should get a smarter workforce who have actually learned something at university so they can contribute when they have jobs.



Giving people free education doesn't really help... people getting something for nothing tend to not respect what they're getting. They'd be less likely to respect the education they're getting, but would rather just treat it as a pathway to a higher income (seems to be how RJL25 viewed his degree). This, from a couple of first-hand accounts I've heard, his how people treated uni when Gough Whitlam sent them there for free.

I don't think HECS is a perfect system (the debt you end up with seems to me to be greater than the value your degree offers when entering industry... many graduates can't get jobs if they've studied humanities degrees, and in many technical fields a skilled labourer can be paid more than an engineer... probably due to too many people having degrees and not enough having practical training but that's a different matter). I don't think you can get rid of HECS though... it allows anyone who qualifies on capacity to learn and capacity to learn alone to take a loan to study rather than having to pay for their degree up-front. AND it makes you place a value on what you're learning at uni.



The ultimate solution for me would be to reduce by anywhere between 10 and 25% the number of people in the Australian workforce who have a university degree. This would increase the number of people training for specific jobs on the job, reduce university class sizes, increase the percentage of graduates finding employment and reset the balance between what you pay for your degree and what it's worth to industry.

It would also reduce the amount the government has to spend on getting people degrees... giving it more money to fund the quality of those degrees through improving university infrastructure and paying more for better quality academics.

=d> +1 sad but true again, just as the jokers we are watching in parliment right now posters here behave just the same :lol:

Lily Fontana - google her and you'll have all the reason not to vote for the rude and narcissistic Rudd.

With regard to university, students should only recieves HECS for their first degree. If they want to chop and change and spend 10 years at uni partying, they should fucking pay for it. I see too many kids doing 6 months of every degree under the sun. This is unacceptable.

A huge problems with the tertiary system is that people simply run up HECS depts and never pay them off. Students should also have to pay up front to re-take courses they fail. If you're a student, you're not at uni to be a f*ck up.

=d> =d>

Or you could look at Tony Abbott yesterday: Aboriginal elders travelled for 3 days for a presentation to parliament to which Tony Abbott showed up late, didn't apologise and then promptly fell asleep.

For those arguing university costs should be repaid, should students who go on to complete years 11 & 12 have to repay their education fees (as it is only compulsory to remain in school until 15)?

Lol I've fallen asleep at a corroboree (sp?) before...

But I've never been rude to people while they've just gone about their working day doing their job.

Edited by thupercoach: 22/8/2013 12:46:44 PM

Yeah, I have absolutely no doubt that you've been short with a waitress, cab driver or some person just doing their job at some point, so I call bullshit on that.

Also, you're not applying to run the country so frankly when you fall asleep doesn't matter.

I kind of agree with what you're saying... but at the same time I think it unfairly lumps some of the smartest and most ambitious people I've known in with people who would be better off not at uni in the first place.

I have a friend who did 2 years of an engineering degree... 1 year of a science degree... 1 year of medicine... 1 year of arts.... then did a full law degree.

Far from spending those years "partying" and being a "f*ck up", he was topping classes in each course and actually learning what the course was teachig - then deciding that he didn't want to do those things for a lifetime.

Now he works as a lawyer and I bet he contributes to his job not just through what he learnt in his law degree, but through a combination of stuff he picked up during his time at uni.



I don't think that guy should be 'punished' because he took a few years to finally decide what to do with his life.



And I'd be surprised if there's evidence to suggest those who 'run up huge HECS debts' then don't pay them off... save for those who escape the Australian taxation system altogether (by leaving the country or by being rich enough to dodge all their tax).

True, it does not. But I want my PM to be the kind if person who identifies with ordinary people. Which is why I am a big fan of Abbott and Howard and not of Rudd and Turnbull.

You're having a laugh if you think Abbott identifies with ordinary people.

If Abbott is struggling to stay awake now, when he's running a campaign, how is he going to manage when he has to work through the rigours of actually running the country?

???

Whatever you think of politicians, if you think running a campaign is anything other than a massive, massive physical and emotional drain and bloody hard work you're kidding yourself.

I've read that twice now, I'm still not sure what he is saying

Nice distraction. Abbott is looking fit and energetic while Rudd is looking tired and worn out.

Back to Rudd, the man has form in rudeness and arrogance.

Yet Abbott doesn't? ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

Yeah, because running a country is a stroll in the park. That's why we've watched literally every global leader ever go grey during their tenure. If you're not up to the campaign then you're not up to running the country.

It's sad that a man who is articulate is labelled 'arrogant'. And can you really label Rudd as "rude" when last night Abbott took it upon himself to shout "Does this guy ever shut up?" on national television over the top of Rudd.

How does Howard or Abbott for that matter identify with ordinary people? :lol:

-PB

By dressing so poorly that people are reminded of their fathers :lol:

I am so sick of political advertising.

On the bright side, we're HALF WAY THERE :lol:

Christ, is that all. #-o

So what policy or combination of policies deternine who you will vote for this time around? Swinging voters only...

For me:
I want a reduced public service and reduced government spending - as a proportion of our population we have way too many bureaucrats.
I want a price on carbon that is market derived and will ultimately be too cost inhibitive to be anything other than a low-carbon economy.
I want less/an end to middle class welfare. Ideally an end to welfare altogether but is a different story altogether - the dependency cycle requires more than just carrot/stick. I think if people value private health insurance / or private education enough they must pay that price in full.
I want a Government with integrity - even if they say and do stuff I don't agree with at least do what you say you will do.
Most of all I want long term vision. This includes a vision of our future economy that is vastly different to the dying sectors we are currently propping up. Infrastructure that we will actually reflect back on and say - I'm so glad they built that - and a place on the world stage that is reflective of our countries actual place in the world not some kind of pathetic attempt to feel good about ourselves. We used to be a country that made breakthroughs and were a confident - albeit minor global citizen. We seem to jump at shadows and cow-tow way too often on issues that REALLY matter.

Not much to ask for is it Tony, Kevin, Christine is it?

You can't end middle-class welfare when most middle-class families struggle to make ends meet as well with the increasing cost of living.

I'll vote for someone who promises to expedite the refugee process, takes gay marriage to an election, tackles the spiralling cost of living and runs a campaign based off more than being less shit than the other guy.

Absolutely you can! Tip 1) live within your means. Tip 2) Revise tip 1.
Less Private School subsidies improves public education on the same if not smaller tax base. Private school fees, like first home buyer, like private health rebate just works to ratchet up the costs of said services.

I agree a more humane and quicker (and depoliticised) refugee process would work for everyone. Gay marriage should not be a political issue. If people want to marry they should be able to but appealling to politicians to be the bearers of public decency is giving them way to much power. Fewer public sector means people keep more of their actual earnings and then they can spend it more on what they want (ie private health/education).

Edited by quichefc: 22/8/2013 02:50:00 PM

BUT there are many in the community who want to keep refugees out of Australia... who represents them? There are many in the community who want to prevent marriage from being open to anyone other than a man to a woman... who represents them?

THAT is why they're political issues.


And taking money away from the public sector is all well and good... but what it means is basically turning over stuff the government currently does to private businesses to do it... do you *really* think services like education, health, science and research, law enforcement, the military, etc. shouldn't have functioning structures run accountable to the general public rather than merely to profits?



When I was a student, I believed in libertarianism... I thought governments were slow and inefficient and beaurocratic and stuff should be run privately. Then I got a job and saw how hopelessly inefficient and beaurocratic and untrustworthy big business could be... now public accountability looks prettty good to me for all essential services.

I've done the votecompass and sit almost directly middle economically so don't think for a minute think I am advocating a holus bolus hand over to private business. I believe in public schools (I send my children there) and I don't have private health insurance - I pay the medicare levy and am happy to just pay once and recieve the service I get. If I felt I had a health issue that required a faster resolution I would pay out of pocket for that service. But I don't expect the gov't to subsidise me cos I don't want to wait in the public system.

With respect to refugees/gay marriage no Government can hold a moral position that the entire community will agree with so therefore I think it is redundant to seek approval for Government to change public opinions.

If people want reduced/increased refugee intake that is a matter for the Gov't of the day to determine based on the economics but Afro is talking about the process - a quicker process is not only economically quicker (ie you don't have to detain for as long) but it is a more humane approach. I would find it hard to see on economic or any grounds how someone could advocate a longer detention process.

It's funny because I'v eprobably arrived at this point for the exact opposite thinking Gov't should control all and realising that that is way too inefficient... :-k

If the politicians don't do it, then how do you legalise gay marriage? The onus is on them as representatives of their constituents to see that their wishes are listened to and made a reality.

It's all fine to say 'live within your means', but when you WERE living within your means, and then the increased cost of living means that you no longer are able to do that then you see the problem. 30,822 Australians filed for personal insolvency in 2012-13, compared to some 24,000 in 2009.

Or you can just choose to toss out the worst government since Keating (or Fraser, take your pick) on the basis that the next lot can't fk things up any worse.

"The other guy won't be worse. Vote for them"

Political discourse is a complete fucking joke in this country.

Coalition has $30b gap in promises: leading economist Saul Eslake
Date
August 22, 2013 - 3:53PM

Tim Colebatch
Tim Colebatch is The Age's economic

Economist Saul Eslake sees a $30 billion gap in Coalition figures.

There is a gap of almost $30 billion between the size of the tax cuts and new spending the Coalition has promised and the savings it has unveiled so far, leading economist Saul Eslake estimates.

In a 34-page review for clients of how a Coalition government might change economic management, Mr Eslake, chief Australian economist for Bank of America Merrill Lynch, also highlights the potential for "significant and ongoing tensions" in an Abbott government between its "genuine economic liberals", such as shadow treasurer Joe Hockey, and those who are "more sceptical about markets ... including in many cases Tony Abbott as Prime Minister".

He predicts that the Coalition will ultimately adopt all of Labor's proposed budget savings measures, except for ending the tax break for cars bought through salary sacrifice.


Even so, Mr Eslake estimates, the Coalition has so far committed to $28.4 billion of tax cuts and $14.8 billion on new spending in the next four years, a total of $43.25 billion. But he estimates the nine savings measures the Coalition has announced so far would save only $13.44 billion over the same period.

"By our reckoning, over the remainder of the election campaign, the Coalition needs to announce additional savings measures totally in the vicinity of $30 billion over the four years to 2016-17 in order to be able credibly to claim that it would produce better bottom line outcomes than those projected (by Treasury and the Department of Finance), he said."

"That is a substantial sum, although it is considerably less than the $70 billion 'black hole' suggested by the government."

A former federal president of the Young Liberals and member of the Kennett government's commission of audit, Mr Eslake is the first independent economist to quantify the cost of the Coalition's policies. His estimate adds to growing concerns that the Coalition will hold back its savings measures until the eve of the election, to avoid public scrutiny.

Mr Eslake questions how serious the Coalition will be in tackling the budget deficit – and warns that as the mining boom ends, economic growth could be so weak that it would be better for Australia if it put it off.

"Given its persistent opposition to attempts to restrain growth in entitlement programs, its commitment to introducing its own big new entitlement program (paid parental leave), its equivocation about the GST, and its general commitment to cutting taxes, it's unclear whether and how a Coalition government would deal with the longer-term challenges confronting Australia's public finances", Mr Eslake said.

Former Treasury secretary Ken Henry put a similar view recently, arguing that as baby boomers move from the workforce to the pension, and spending on schools and disability care cranks up, the parties should be focusing on how to increase taxes to pay for all the new spending, not cut them.

Mr Eslake praises the Coalition's key economic spokesmen – Mr Hockey, shadow finance minister Andrew Robb and shadow assistant treasurer Matthias Cormann – as "safe pairs of hands", and genuine economic liberals who "instinctively favour market-based solutions to economic problems".

But he questions whether Mr Abbott and leading National party frontbenchers share that instinct. He notes that Mr Abbott rose to the party leadership by opposing market-based policies to tackle global warming, opposed the floating of the dollar even 10 years after it had happened, and "has opposed every measure the present government has undertaken to subject benefits to some form of means test."

While a Coalition victory could lift business confidence immediately, Mr Eslake says, "whether that's sustained will depend on the Coalition's performance in office".

"We see as an important risk to business and investor confidence in a Coalition government the possibility of significant and ongoing cleavages between genuine economic liberals such as Messrs Hockey, Robb, Malcolm Turnbull, Senator Arthur Sinodinos . . . and a combination of the National Party and other Liberals who are more sceptical of markets, and more inclined to favour universal welfare entitlements, including in many cases Tony Abbott as Prime Minister."

Mr Eslake said similar tensions in the Fraser government resulted in a "singular lack of economic policy achievements".

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/coalition-has-30b-gap-in-promises-leading-economist-saul-eslake-20130822-2sdil.html#ixzz2cgVjMevU