Senator Fielding fails the community
Senator Fielding is defending his decision in the light of criticism leveled at his vote to push through the government’s VSU policy not being family (where a parent is at University) friendly. He is quoted as saying,
"Everybody in the community needs access to childcare and they need to pay for it themselves. You don’t ask everybody else to pay."
Using his logic then I should get a reduction in my taxes. See I don’t use childcare at all, but am clearly subsidising part of its cost impact to families through Centrelink payments. I do not think that it is fair that I should have to subsidise the cost of caring for other people’s children. To paraphrase the Family First Senator – You breed them you pay for them.
I am amazed that the Senator made such an obvious error in either judgment or understanding (or both). Clearly the nature of the common good, a sense of community if you will, is what makes Australia the society that it is. Admittedly under HoWARd we are moving towards a less socialist, caring society, but by and large Australians do not begrudge the assistance we provide through our taxes to welfare. Be that a baby bonus or a drought subsidy.
Or has the good Senator, in that one statement given Australians a glimpse of his prejudices, narrowness of thought and political agenda?
The Senator is right to expect his offices not to be trashed, but he is wrong if he thinks that he remains unaccountable to the voters.
Image from here
December 12th, 2005 at 1:24 am
I won’t explain why I disagree over VSU because I’ve been writing non-stop about it on my blog, but you might be interested to know that even a lot of farmers now oppose drought subsidies.
The reason is that it keeps bad farmers in business. Rather than preparing for the Australia’s weather cycle – including the inevitable next drought – they instead farm the land to buggery and then wait for a handout. Meanwhile farmers who do the right thing by both the business and the environment get nothing, so it’s not very fair.
Subsidies also encourage farmers to keep livestock on their paddocks during drought, even though that’s a real disaster because the animals’ hooves ruin the fragile soil.
December 12th, 2005 at 6:37 am
Splat Guy,
You’re very close to being off-topic, however, your comment that some farmers oppose the drought subsidy has greater merit. That being – every system has a weakness. We do not get rid of an entire system just because of a weakness. We interact on the weakness and make the system function better.
How about these ‘good’ farmers mentoring the ‘bad’ farmers?
It’s called welfare.
December 12th, 2005 at 8:17 am
So, students who have children (and therefore need childcare) are bad students?
So students who have trouble concentrating and getting proper nutrition because of decaying teeth (and therefore need dental services) are bad students?
If you use an analogy, try to make sure it fits at least somewhat. That doesn’t even come close.
December 12th, 2005 at 2:36 pm
Truly, we live in stupid times.
December 12th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
Moving to a less socialist society? God, I hope so. I wouldn’t have voted Liberal otherwise.
But why should a student be forced to join a student union and fund its activities as a condition of getting an education? If you think that society in general should subsidise childcare (and society does), then fine – at least fund it through general taxation which has a progressive element.
By contrast, compulsory student union fees are regressive, given they are a flat fee that takes no account of ability to pay. As students typically have lower disposable incomes than many other cohorts in society, these union fees are aggressively regressive.
Frankly, I don’t see why poor childless students should have to play welfare providers for students with kids. If they woprk (and most students do) they already pay taxes to subsidise childcare. They shouldn’t have to pay twice.
It’s just a shame that the Left have so little faith in students and student unions that so many opponents of VSU equate it with the death of student unions. If the unions truly represent students they will attract members. If not, they deserve whatever fate befalls them.
December 12th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
Good point Helen.
Dichotomous thinking gets us nowhere very fast. Particularly if we (or what we represent) happen to fall into the defective or bad side.
It’s the grey areas that allow for change, fluidity and dynamism.
Perhaps the good never want to welcome the bad and we will always sit outside their approval so that they can feel superior, righteous and deserving
December 12th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
yarraside,
How does your thinking account or justify the GST?
The GST is regressive, given that it is a flat fee that takes no account of ability to pay and has been added to almost everything.
December 12th, 2005 at 5:08 pm
Suki, before answering your response can I note that student unions are not a tier of government, other than in the twisted minds of current and former student politicians (apart from myself, that is). So the comparisons with taxation just don’t cut it.
However, in answer to your questions:
(a) GST replaced numerous sales taxes which in many cases were levied at a much higher rate than 10% – in fact, up to 45%. 12%, 22%, 32% on basics like toothbrushes and toilet paper, with no difference based on ability to pay – so GST is at least no more unfair than the old system was, and is arguably fairer.
(b) The GST’s introduction was accompanied by substantial and ongoing reductions in personal income taxes and increases in direct transfer payments to welfare recipients – what student union fee ever did the same?
(c) GST does not apply to many services, including various health and education services and fresh foods.
So do you have an answer to why poor students should be forced to act as welfare providers to other students through compulsory union fees?
December 12th, 2005 at 5:27 pm
yarraside, the answer is in the post.
We live in communities.
As such all the members benefit. Outside the University- for our lifetime. Inside the University for the length of our Degrees.
Wouldn’t you say that the cost is commensurate with the time frame?
Or would you have only rich car owners affording roads?
Your position is morally bankrupt (or you operate as a disengaged subsystem) if you do not see the need to support community.
December 12th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
Morally bankrupt? Hardly. It is you – not me – who wants to force poor students who can’t afford compulsory up-front union fees to pay up or be denied enrolment.
And why? To subsidise the choices of others, including subsidised rowing regattas, overseas trips to debating conferences and producing political propaganda.
Why are you too scared to let students decide for themselves?
What is it about the Left and their need to control?
Anyway the Bill has passed the Senate, and nothing you or the thugs who have vandalised politicians’ offices in response to it can say or do to stop VSU coming in from 1 July 2006.
December 12th, 2005 at 5:55 pm
yarraside,
I hope you are not accusing me of a crime!
Else you would look simplistic as well as morally bankrupt huh?
Have you subscribed to Detective Inspector (Forensic) Susan Fielding’s assessment of who the culprits must be?
My oh my, so naive (and angry).
Public life is obviously not what the Fieldings were expecting.
Speaking of thugs – your side has Vanstone and Ruddock.
Read Steal this book… and learn that stereotypes make easy targets.
December 12th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
Suki,
I’ll post again if/when you do me the courtesy of responding to my arguments.
If not, I am happy to allow your silence to speak for itself.
Regards,
yarraside
December 12th, 2005 at 6:30 pm
“And why? To subsidise the choices of others, including subsidised rowing regattas, overseas trips to debating conferences and producing political propaganda.”
The money goes towards extra-curricular activities that are important for a well-rounded education but that poor students may not be able to afford otherwise, legal services, child care, student advocacy (ie help when you feel you have been unfairly treated in class), and cheap food (again, helping poor students).
Are you suggesting that poor students don’t deserve to go to rowing regattas or debating conferences?
December 13th, 2005 at 1:21 pm
Suki – Wow. I was extrememly impressed with your arguing style. I thought it was extremely insightful to bring in the GST as an example, and also thought it was cool to not fall into yarraside’s attempts to mis-frame the arguments.
Your arguing reminds me of those kung-fu masters who fend off unfocussed agression with only the minimum of movement. Poetry in motion.
December 13th, 2005 at 6:02 pm
Thank you David.
Your calm centredness, insight, empathy and evaluation is equally Zen Mistress-ish. 🙂