Friday, March 13, 2009

Schools Bullied into merger talks

Rural schools told to consider option in wake of federal funding

Written by JEFF ZEUSCHNER.- Source: Wangaratta Chronicle

LOCAL rural primary schools are being bullied into considering mergers, Wangaratta’s federal member claimed yesterday.

Sophie Mirabella (MHR, Indi) accused the State Government of using an imminent windfall of federal funding "as a cover to force schools to amalgamate".

The Wangaratta Chronicle has confirmed that Oxley, Milawa, Everton and Whorouly primary school principals were summoned to a meeting earlier this week and asked to discuss the option of all four schools merging into one new school at Milawa.

The merger was prefaced on the basis the Federal Government’s stimulus package could deliver up to $850,000 per school, and a merger could be a good way to maximise educational benefits.

Mrs Mirabella said schools had been given the impression "that discussion of amalgamation is a requirement before federal funds are handed over".

She accused Victorian Minister of Education, Bronwyn Pike, of using the department, through regional directors and regional network leaders, to do the "government’s dirty work".

But Ms Pike, in a statement to Wangaratta Chronicle yesterday, refuted Mrs Mirabella’s allegations and said all schools have access and are entitled to federal and state capital funding.

"There will never be a policy in this government, nor will there be pressure from this government to force school closures or mergers," she said.

"Because of a huge investment in capital funding from both us and the Federal Government we have a huge work program of projects we need to get up and running to deliver new school buildings and jobs in Victoria.

"Labor MPs are out there talking to schools about how they can best use the money, unlike the Federal Opposition members who tried to vote this package down."

Oxley Primary School council met last night and unanimously voted against any merger.

Council president, Dianne Newton, said Oxley was a strong school with 67 students that delivered quality education and remained a valuable asset to the local community.

"Our school is continually ranked well above the state (academic) average and parental surveys indicate a strong level of satisfaction with the school," Mrs Newton said.

"We can’t see any real reason for a merger," she said, acknowledging the four schools do already work together within the cluster group.

Mrs Newton said her school had good facilities with a large multi-purpose shed currently being built, and a bike path now linking the school with the Oxley township.

She said the school would be getting in touch with the other three schools to convey its stance.

• Edi Upper, Myrrhee, Greta, Whitfield and Moyhu primary schools were summoned to a meeting with education departmernt regional office staff yesterday.



Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Sophie Mirabella: on Regional Telecommunications

Photo of Sophie MirabellaSophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women and Youth) | Hansard source

I rise this morning to comment on a very important aspect of government failure and policy, particularly as it relates to rural and regional Australia. Some on the other side may laugh and mock at the lack of resources. The rhetoric is great: ad nauseam, they seem to get the lines and trot them out like wound-up robots. But people on the ground who live in real towns and cities, not in the make-believe pretend world of spin doctors but in the real world in rural and regional Australia, know some things for certain. One of those things is that this government’s approach to regional telecommunications is an absolute joke. Whether it is through sheer malice that they make the assumption there are swathes of rural and regional Australia who did not vote for them at the last election, therefore why bother, or whether it is through sheer incompetence, it is inexcusable, nonetheless.

Labor’s cancellation of the Howard government’s OPEL contract was an absolute act of political opportunism. It was one of the worst decisions they could have made for people living in rural and regional Australia. And it is not just businesses that need access to the latest in telecommunications—it is schools; it is households; it is emerging online businesses as well, many of which have been successful and are developing in rural and regional parts of the country. But it is very interesting to note that very little has been promised and, in fact, even less can be delivered by this government when it comes to telecommunications in rural and regional Australia.

I would like to read a paragraph from Optus’s submission to the Senate inquiry into the Labor government’s proposed National Broadband Network. They have quite correctly slammed the Rudd government. This is what they said:

The cancellation of OPEL was a lost opportunity for Australian business and consumers, particularly in the bush. Almost 900,000 premises across rural and remote Australia were to have been delivered metro-equivalent services at metro-comparable prices. Many of those premises would have been receiving services now.

Optus’s submission does expose the Labor government’s indifference and inability to actually deliver for country Australia. Kevin Rudd’s approach and that of his minister is shameful. (Time expired)



Labels: , ,

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Sophie Mirabella: Area Consultative Committees

Photo of Sophie MirabellaSophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women and Youth) | Hansard source

I rise this evening to talk about something that is very distressing to rural and regional Australia and, I know from direct experience, to my part of the world—north-east Victoria and the border with Albury-Wodonga. That is the demise of area consultative committees. The Rudd government’s decision to shut down the network of regional development agencies by June this year will have major consequences, and it has hit our regions and it has hit those who have served on these committees in volunteer capacities very hard. I think one of the harshest things of all is the personal effect it will have.

There are individuals who have volunteered of their time for many years. In fact, some of them have served on these area consultative committees for longer than some people’s marriages survive. Not only have they been told, ‘No thanks; we don’t need you any more,’ they have not even been thanked for the job they have done over these many years. Let us remember that these are volunteers. They include people like Eric Lund, who chaired the North East Victoria Area Consultative Committee, and Shane O’Brien and Joan Ross, also from NVACC. They include Bert Eastoe, who chaired the Albury Wodonga Area Consultative Committee, Ray Hortle—also from AWACC—and all the committee members who have served on both these area consultative committees.

I want to go on the record today and say: thank you. Thank you for going through those mounds of paper and selecting the best local projects. Thank you for helping our councils, other community organisations and individuals develop their applications so they could be the best applications possible—not only to get funding through the Regional Partnerships program but through other government programs. I know that the small-business officers who worked in area consultative committees have gone well beyond their duty in assisting locals, individuals, organisations and local government in putting together applications—for state funding as well. They have been an invaluable resource and they have not been given a ‘thanks’ from the government; they have just been told very hastily that they are no longer needed. This was after they were told there would be transitional arrangements.

Imagine: you have all these volunteers and you have a smaller group of paid staff, who have this extraordinary experience not only with the funding programs previously available but also knowing what projects and needs exist within the regions that they have operated in—and their expertise is not even being utilised in this transitional process. I call on the government to have some sort of small ceremony to acknowledge those who have worked as staff and those who have worked as volunteers—to acknowledge their efforts. It is a small thing to do in return for the efforts that they have put in over many years. It is not just good manners; it is the right thing to do. Quite rightly, some of these people have taken the sudden shutting of these area consultative committees as a bit of a personal slight. The government has not even thanked them, and they have put in so much.

I know many of them will continue to put a lot into their communities in other ways, but I think the government should follow the lead elsewhere and actually provide some sort of job security for local ACC staff. It is interesting that, at a time when the government attacks private enterprise for its lack of job security and its callousness, the government has shown that exact same—worse—callousness in first promising transitional arrangements and then dumping on the staff, at very short notice, saying: ‘No thanks, you’re not even needed for transitional arrangements.’

Thank you very much to the area consultative committees for the money you have helped bring to our region—whether it was for libraries, whether it was to help with telecommunications, whether it was to help with community halls, whether it was to help with the sheds, whether is was to help with childcare centres, whether it was to help with maintaining and learning about our heritage through Ned Kelly restoration works at Glenrowan or myriad other projects. Thank you very much for what you have done. Our communities have been enriched, and we have had the services that otherwise would not be there. I want to put that on the record and I call on the government to follow my lead. (Time expired)


Labels:

Sophie Mirabella: International Women’s Day

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women and Youth) | Hansard source

I rise to respond to the statement by the Minister for the Status of Women on International Women’s Day. I am delighted to have the opportunity to join with the minister in acknowledging International Women’s Day, which of course was last Sunday, 8 March. Australian women do indeed have much of which they can be proud. They have certainly come a long way in the last 100 years. I take this opportunity to applaud the women who are still struggling today in various parts of our nation, within various communities, whether it be in Indigenous communities or in the workforce or in a multitude of other forums in which they are struggling to improve the lot of women generally. Often they are silent volunteers, working hard because of a passion that drives them.

We are all beneficiaries of the efforts of many women who have gone before us. At the same time, however, we should acknowledge that there are many women around the world who do not enjoy the same freedoms that we do. They are denied a proper education, they are not free to make their own decisions, and the laws in their countries do not protect them from violence and abuse. Their position is quite literally worse than that of women in this country more than 100 years ago.

I do not doubt that the minister’s interest and passion in the area of gender equality are genuine, and I thank her for representing the interests of Australian women in such an august forum as the United Nations. But I think it would be a pretty safe bet that last Sunday most Australian women were too busy with their regular weekend activities, preparing for the working week ahead and/or spending time with family and friends to remember that it was International Women’s Day. It is likely an even safer bet that the last thing on their minds as they sat down to Sunday brunch was Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s statements and his crew in Canberra. But it is instructive on this occasion, when women’s issues are highlighted and women’s achievement celebrated, to take stock of exactly how the Rudd government has fared when it comes to delivering on their pre-election commitments to Australian women.

Looking at the big issues that have been nominated by the government, like paid maternity leave, prevention of violence against women and child care, it is safe to say that Labor’s record on these is a microcosm of their approach to government over the last 16 months. It is best summed up as committees, reports, task forces, delays, indecision and, unfortunately, disappointment. I would like to look more closely at some of the issues that the minister addressed at the UN in her speech in March and which she has again reiterated today in the parliament. She stated that Australia is pursuing three key priority areas for advancing gender equality. They are: improving women’s outcomes and financial independence; ensuring women’s voices are heard at all levels of decision making; and reducing violence against women. These three areas are of importance to women in their quest to close the gender gap, but, unfortunately, on closer examination it is quite clear that this Labor government does not leave much to cheer about.

Improving women’s economic outcomes and financial independence is in fact a critical and important objective, but economic outcomes and financial independence often start with the security of a job—whether it is that of the woman herself, her partner or the family on which she relies. The day the current government comes into this chamber and says that they have a real plan for jobs is the day they will have done something to assist women in their advancement to obtaining economic security and relieving them of some of those economic concerns.

The minister highlighted in her speech to the UN that Australia’s maternity payment is equivalent to about nine weeks of the minimum wage and assists with the extra costs incurred at the time of birth or adoption of a child. She spoke of it in glowing terms. I am disappointed, however, that she failed to acknowledge that this enlightened initiative was introduced by the Howard government, albeit under a different name. She also failed to acknowledge that some of her colleagues were not so supportive of such a scheme at the time. In fact, the member for Rankin said in the House on 23 May 2007 in relation to the baby bonus:

I cannot for the life of me understand how any government could come up with such a scheme.

I am pleased, however, that the minister herself can and has publicly acknowledged the Howard government’s initiative in this area.

As to the government’s action on paid maternity leave, I am afraid that the news is not so good. The minister informed the UN of the Productivity Commission’s inquiry into a paid maternity leave scheme but failed to inform UN members that, as reported in the Courier Mail on 23 February 2009:

Senior Ministers have been privately warning interest groups the $40 billion hole in the Government’s budget will make it too difficult to fund the proposed $450 million scheme in this May’s budget.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was talking tough in September last year when he said that it was time to ‘bite the bullet’ on paid maternity leave. At the same time, the Treasurer also said:

We’ve had 12 years of neglect on this, it’s time Australia bit the bullet on paid maternity leave.

They seem to biting bullets all the time but achieving nothing. Even Sharan Burrows said on the ACTU website last November:

The ACTU, unions and thousands of Australian families call on the Rudd Government to include the Productivity Commission’s proposed scheme in the 2009 Federal Budget as a matter of urgency.

Now it is a very different story from this self-styled champion of women. Just last week, as she sniffed the wind and saw that her Labor colleagues were furiously back-pedalling, the ACTU President was quoted in the media as saying:

If it needs to be phased in over a couple of years, that’s a discussion that can be had, but don’t make women wait.

So there is a bit of back-pedalling to support the changed federal Labor policy. Four months ago it was a matter of urgency and now it is fine for us to have a bit of a discussion.

But even Sharan Burrows would probably acknowledge—if only privately—that neither Kevin Rudd or Wayne Swan has made a tough decision since coming to office, and they are quick to blame others when it comes to failing to meet their election promises. Given December’s $10 billion cash splash and the $42 billion spending package announced last month, the coalition has every right to be sceptical of the Rudd government’s ability to deliver on its election commitment of paid maternity leave. With such poor economic management and the racking up of $200 billion debt, it does look increasingly likely that the Rudd government will walk away from its commitment to support families and blame everyone else but themselves. In fact, the Rudd government is so sensitive on this issue that it has gone into hiding and refused to publicly release the final report of the Productivity Commission, which was given to it last week. But did Minister Plibersek include these details in her address? No, she did not.

The minister also told the UN that the government was improving the quality, cost and availability of child care. But did she inform them of the current problems in the childcare industry? No, she did not. Did she inform them that while in opposition she and her colleagues screamed for vacancy data to be released so that those involved in the industry could strategically plan where centres are in critical shortage and where there is an oversupply? I very much doubt it, as the last time such information was released was in April 2007 under the previous government. It is now almost 16 months since the Rudd government came to office and it refuses to release such figures. And where do I even begin to start when it comes to the collapse of ABC Learning? Labor’s incompetence in handling this issue is legendary throughout the industry. People will tell you privately that they are too afraid to name themselves in the media and discuss it because they are afraid of the retribution that will inevitably follow. This has only added to the stress of families and working mothers and fathers around the nation.

Then there was Labor’s election promise to ‘end the dreaded double drop-off’ by building 260 new childcare centres in schools and on public land across the country. What has happened so far? It has taken 16 months, but plans are now underway to build six of these centres. The federal government has budgeted $114 million to build a total of 38 centres over the next four years. The fate of the remaining 222 centres that Kevin Rudd firmly promised apparently rests with the states and territories in COAG, and we all know what a parlous position state Labor’s economic mismanagement has left the states in. Now federal Labor is passing the buck to the states.

Labor’s big promise of universal access to preschool for all four-year-olds has similarly been sent to COAG to be discussed by yet another task force and to be eventually implemented over four years. In the meantime, New South Wales parents are still paying exorbitant fees and the community preschool sector faces collapse due to funding pressures. But at least Labor has a task force in place!

A very interesting article in the Courier-Mail reports that the Rudd government is giving $252 million to the Bligh Queensland government, in the middle of an election campaign, to help fund the building of 240 new kindergartens around that state by 2014. Firstly, I make it clear that the coalition welcomes any initiative that genuinely benefits Australian children, particularly in the area of early childhood development and education. But we should be highly sceptical about an announcement in the middle of a state election campaign, to the tune of $252 million, when the Labor Party cannot come up with any funding for a paid parental leave scheme about which it has built such high expectations. Given that the federal government has, to date, been unable to get no more than six of its 260 childcare centres which it promised off the ground, my hopes for the Queensland government building 240 kindergartens by 2014 are virtually non-existent.

I welcome the government’s promise of a national action plan to reduce violence against women and children, which was sent to a newly formed council. The council has been working hard, going around the country, consulting and genuinely working on what is hoped will be a practical national plan. It recently asked the government for an extension of the December 2008 deadline and it is due to report this month. That is fair enough.

But let us look at what Labor did in the meantime. They callously cancelled the highly effective ‘Violence against women—Australia says no’ public education campaign and they have put nothing in its place. So we have, effectively, had a 16-month vacuum when it comes to public education on violence against women. That is not good enough. I am sure that it is not something that the Minister for Housing included in her address to the UN and, given the collective $52 billion Labor have spent in recent months—(Time expired)

Labels:

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Rural and Regional Health Services: Sophie Mirabella

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women and Youth) | Hansard source

I rise this morning to speak about something that is of particular importance to not only my rural electorate of Indi, in north-east Victoria, but also all rural, regional and outer metropolitan areas: health and the review that is currently being conducted into the RRAMA classifications—the rural, regional and metropolitan area classifications. I called on Prime Minister Rudd and the Minister for Health and Ageing to ensure that this review into the rezoning of rural areas will not rob rural and regional areas of their particular status that allows them to attract doctors, nurses and other professionals by providing subsidies as an incentive to go to those particular rural and regional zoned areas. We all know that health is not only an important part of the infrastructure for particular towns or regions; it is essential. It is a basic need. It is far more difficult to attract a specialist or a GP to a particular country town than it is to attract them to a particular suburb in inner or middle Melbourne, Sydney or other capital city. We all know that, and that is why the previous government had a very proud record of ensuring that the problem was solved not with rhetoric but with real dollars on the table. This classification system allowed areas to be classified according to need and thus be given proportionately more subsidies to be able to attract those doctors.

We have heard from the Rural Doctors Association who have warned us that if there are deleterious changes to the rezoning system we will see an exodus of current doctors, a decrease of incentives for young doctors and young specialists to train in the bush and, obviously, possible closures of a lot of small regional hospitals. It is hard enough as it is, even with many of the incentives introduced by the previous government, which I had great satisfaction in joining with many of my rural and regional colleagues in lobbying for, to attract and provide incentives under the current system, let alone with any other changes. I will oppose, and the coalition will oppose, any changes that decrease the number of doctors and nurses in rural and regional areas. It is telling that, at a time when we have an ageing population and we have these concerns, nothing in the $42 billion package is directed to health, particularly to rural and regional health.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Sophie Mirabella Speech: Student Unionism Bill

Photo of Sophie MirabellaSophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women and Youth) | Hansard source

As shadow Minister for, amongst other matters, youth, I rise today to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009.Whilst the bill does indeed contain other measures, its primary purpose is to impose a new tax on the one million students attending universities across the nation, whether the students are full time, part time, studying on campus or external. Whether or not they have a need for the services and activities which the $250 fee is intended to prop up, they will all be hit with what amounts to a new compulsory annual $250 tax, equating to $250 million around the nation taken from students, who can least afford it.

The opposition will be opposing this bill. At a time when students are doing it tough and the government is splashing around $42 billion, including money for a so-called education revolution, they are slugging students with a $250 tax. The bill represents a broken promise—surprisingly!—by the Labor Party.

Photo of Tony SmithTony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) | Hansard source

No!

Photo of Sophie MirabellaSophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women and Youth) | Hansard source

Yes, member for Casey, it is a broken promise encapsulated in this bill. Did the Labor Party promise at the 2007 election that it would introduce this tax? Did it tell students at universities that it would force them to pay $250? No, it did not. In fact, it did the opposite. At a doorstop in May 2007 the then shadow minister for education, now the Minister for Foreign Affairs, said:

I’m not considering a compulsory HECS style arrangement and the whole basis of the approach is one of a voluntary approach. So I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee.

That was in May, just five months before the last election was called. So not only did Labor not promise to introduce such a compulsory tax, the then shadow minister actually gave a commitment to a voluntary amenities fee. What do the colleagues of the Minister for Foreign Affairs think of forcing increased fees on our university students? During debate on the higher education support bill on 14 October 2003, the member for Wills said:

But there is good news, because Labor will not support any measures to increase fees for Australian students or their families. In my book education is not about how much money your parents have.

The Minister for Finance and Deregulation and member for Melbourne, Lindsay Tanner, said in that very same debate, on the same day:

The reality is that Australian students and Australian families have pretty much reached the limit of their capacity to contribute to their own education or their children’s education.

So, before the 2007 federal election, the current Minister for Foreign Affairs promised not to introduce a compulsory amenities fee and the member for Wills stated that Labor would not support any increase in fees for Australian students. On top of that, we had the current minister for finance state his belief that students could not afford to pay any more. Now, after the election, the Labor Party is introducing a compulsory $250 amenities fee. All this proves that any promises the Labor Party makes before an election are absolutely meaningless. It will say and do whatever it thinks will get it elected.

As stated by the Minister for Youth:

… the bill will also provide universities with the option to implement a services fee from 1 July 2009, capped at a maximum of $250 per year to invest in quality support and advocacy services.

The minister went on to say:

Universities that choose to levy a fee will be expected to consult with students on the nature of the services and amenities and enhanced advocacy that the fee would support.

In other words, before deciding what types of services and amenities the university can spend its compulsorily levied fee on, it is going to have to consult with students. Who will these students be, exactly? I think they will be a very small group of student politicians. They will be the so-called representatives of the student union, representatives who are elected by, at the very best count, 10 per cent of the student population—and more like five per cent if you are at Sydney or Melbourne universities. You can be sure that these student politicians will be representatives, definitely, of their own vested interests and the advancement of their own political careers. They certainly will not be representative of the majority of students on campus because the majority of students on campus do not bother to participate in student union elections. There may be some criticism from the other side of the House on that but it is within the rights of tertiary students to attend a university and engage, or not engage, in whatever activities they may choose—including voting and being involved in student unions.

In addition, the minister, in an attempt to allay any obvious concerns about what such compulsorily levied fees could be spent on, said:

… the bill prohibits universities from allowing the expenditure of any funds raised from a compulsory student services and amenities fee to support political parties, or support the election of a person to the Commonwealth, state or territory legislatures or to a local government body.

This clause is really meaningless. It will allow the compulsory fee to be spent on a whole range of political activities. It does not expressly prohibit funding of campaigns for or against political causes or particular legislation, or of any campaigns that the student unions may run. Nor does the bill expressly prohibit the use of compulsorily acquired funds to be channelled to the student media to promote whatever cause they desire. In fact, this is expressly allowed under the guidelines. Worse still, the new student services and amenities fee guidelines, which are supposed to outline exactly what services may be funded by the new fee, will be tabled as a disallowable instrument—but not until after the bill has been passed. So we are not quite sure exactly what form the guidelines will finally take when they are tabled.

The bill does not prevent student money being taken out of allowable activities and diverted into other, disallowable activities. We saw this cross-subsidisation occur in Victoria when the then government introduced legislation—similar in some ways to the current legislation—which purported to limit the activities that could be funded. They purported to do that by listing the activities, but student unions could take money from an activity which was allowed to be funded by the compulsory so-called amenities fee and could spend it on an activity that was not expressly allowed. In other words, a student union could receive money to run a cafeteria, take money out of the till and spend it on political propaganda. Or the student union could receive money to provide administrative support and use that money to fund the wages of someone who was employed to do that but who in fact spent their time campaigning for the re-election of the union president, for example. The student union could receive funds to provide important services, ostensibly—but we all know how much those funds can get eaten up by administration costs. It is quite frightening when you look at some of the figures before the commencement of voluntary student unionism. Monash University collected over $8.5 million in compulsory fees in one year and a whopping 56 per cent of that went towards administration costs. One wonders about the range of activities that would be covered by a very imaginative and creative student union body classifying all sorts of activities as administration costs.

So we have a government who told the Australian people before the 2007 election that they would not introduce a compulsory amenities fee and they are now asking us to take them on trust and pass the bill and then at some later date they will introduce into the House guidelines which outline how the new compulsory regime will work. As they never intended to stick to their promise of not introducing a compulsory amenities fee, so they never intended to prevent political activities, causes and salaries from being funded under this proposal.

Of course, the minister will point to the fee guidelines as some sort of guarantee against the use of compulsorily acquired fees for political purposes, but quite frankly they are not worth the paper they are written on. Firstly, the list of items that can be funded is quite extensive and broad, but in any case, as we know, the content of the fee guidelines is largely irrelevant because, in addition to what has been said, there will be no system of monitoring or policing whether or not the universities comply with these guidelines. That is right: there will be no system of reporting back to the education minister so that judgments can be made on whether this quarter of a billion dollars of student taxes is being well spent. The bottom line is this: there will be no accountability. It will essentially be up to individual students to become the whistleblowers and to raise any concerns they might have about how their amenities fee is spent, and even then they would have to get access to accounts to prove their suspicions, and even then, if a breach is found to have occurred, it is at the minister’s discretion whether any penalty is imposed.

Can it get any worse? Yes, it can. The legislation provides the Minister for Education with the discretion to approve additional amenities and services that may be funded by the compulsory fee. We have the Minister for Education—a former union lawyer, a staunch union supporter and, importantly in this context, a compulsory student union advocate—and she will be the person given the legislated authority to make changes to the guidelines and decide what other services can be funded by this fee. Does anyone in this House honestly believe that the minister—someone who was a student union politician and who was the beneficiary of compulsorily acquired union fees—will actually act to restrain the political and other activities of young left-wing student politicians of today? Of course she will not. No-one honestly believes that.

Photo of Daryl MelhamDaryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) | Hansard source

Mr Melham interjecting

Photo of Sophie MirabellaSophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women and Youth) | Hansard source

I see my friend across the chamber smiling. She will do the exact opposite. She will do everything in her power to make it easy for ordinary students to subsidise the activist student political elite on her side of politics.

The Minister for Youth and Sport stated in her second reading speech that this bill is not compulsory student unionism. It is a pretty big claim, and it is a false claim. She might like it to be so, and if she is genuine in her wishes then I have some empathy, but when a government is bent on imposing a tax on students to pay for amenities and services that a majority of students will probably choose not to use or, in the case of 130,000 external students, may never have the opportunity to use—they will never have a direct say on what sort of services this money should be put toward—one can only surmise that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck. This is compulsory student unionism. If you force students to pay a fee that will fund the political activities of the student union without the students’ consent, you are breathing life into a student union that is unaccountable but financially very powerful. It is like compulsory bargaining fees in the workplace. The union is happy for you not to be a member of its association, but the worker still has to pay a fee—which, incidentally, is often the same amount as a union membership fee.

There are some unintended consequences in this bill for universities. The bill is going to create a huge headache for universities, and I do not think it has been well thought out. Universities, in their desperation to obtain additional funds, may not have had a good look at this bill. Firstly, the SA-HELP loan scheme, which creates a new loan enabling a student to borrow money to pay this new fee, is going to create a massive bureaucratic burden for universities. Secondly, the new representation and advocacy guidelines place new and unfunded obligations on universities. These obligations were never foreshadowed and, disgracefully, they are tied to core education funding. For example, the draft guidelines already require the education provider to effectively fund resources and infrastructure for student unions. What could that mean? That could mean offices, salaries, elections and any other matters that can be considered relevant to the so-called advocacy services. These guidelines are so broadly worded that they could be interpreted to impose virtually any obligation on the university regarding student representation on that campus.

This bill illustrates an extraordinary obsession—perhaps a bit of nostalgia by the education minister and the Minister for Youth and Sport, remembering the good old student days and the fun they had when involved in student politics—to prop up student unions, organisations that currently attract a small minority of students as members. In addition to every struggling student, we are now going to have university administrations also subsidising the political careers and pet issues of the elite class of student activists.

Back in 2005, when the Howard government took the historic step of legislating for voluntary student unionism, there was a huge outcry that student services would collapse, and that has not been the case. It was a historic step for those who believe that freedom of association for students is a fundamental right and that students are mature and old enough to decide whether or not they should join a union and where they should allocate their money. The Liberal Party believed then and still believes that people who are, by and large, adults should be free to choose how they should spend their hard-earned money and what they should spend it on. They should not be forced to pay a levy for services that they may or may not use. The historic Howard government voluntary student unionism legislation in 2005 put a stop to the enforcement of ‘no ticket, no start’ on all university campuses, and it was a great day for many students, many of whom were not politically motivated and still are not politically motivated but were grateful that they could attend a tertiary institution for the primary purpose of achieving their education without being forced to fork out additional funds to the student union.

The bill back in 2005 put the often exorbitant fees back in the pockets of students, allowing them to decide where that money should be directed. We have seen since that time significant savings for students. Students on average have saved over $240 a year and those who have chosen not to become members of student unions have saved on average $318. So we have seen a fall in the cost of union membership, which is a good thing. It forced student unions to be responsive to student demands, make themselves attractive, advocate the reason why students should join them, and also lowered their fees. It has also meant that students’ money has not been diverted in such a blatant manner to political parties and causes in that very blatant way we have seen on many occasions over the past few decades but most recently during the 2004 election, when the National Union of Students spent around $250,000 campaigning against the Howard government.

The accusations that voluntary student unionism has led to the collapse of student services are just bluster of an unrepresentative minority of students. Many services, counselling and medical services for example, are still available at almost every university in some form. In fact, the imposition of this fee and working through the amenities fee guidelines may often lead to a duplication of services at some campuses.

We have seen some interesting activities. For example, the RMIT Student Union produces a radio program on 3CR every week called Blazing Textbooks, which, as its website states, seeks to promote ‘an anti-capitalist perspective on current issues in education from around Australia and the world’. Hardly mainstream, but an interesting perspective to take. And they are entitled to take it, but it shows where their priorities lie. At the same time the website blames voluntary student unionism for the decline in its advocacy services. Any fair-minded person could see that this student union has placed greater priority on producing this radio program and having their bit of ideological fun than actually providing the sort of advocacy services that students would want and that would be relevant to students.

We have also seen a recent example where the student union at the University of Melbourne removed about $18,000 from its clubs and societies budget to give those funds to the National Union of Students. So you tell me where the benefit is for students there, when those members who are members of the clubs and societies I am sure would have vehemently disagreed with that money being taken out and given to the National Union of Students. But under these guidelines and under this bill that would be not only a legitimate but a necessary allocation of funds. You could easily argue within these broad guidelines that it was essential in the interests of advocacy and representation of students that the National Union of Students received even more funding.

The Australian Liberal Party is passionate about freedom, about freedom of association, and it is one of the party’s fundamental tenets. Whether it is membership of a union, an employer organisation or a student representative body, an individual should not be forced to join an organisation against their will. And we should not separate students from the argument of voluntary association. By and large they are adults, by and large they have the ability to decide for themselves. We have always believed it is not up to politicians, it is not up to the minority who are involved in student politics, to decide what is in the best interests of students. We believe that students can best decide that for themselves. But the Labor Party in coming to office at the recent federal election has said, ‘No, let’s turn back the clock, let’s return to the status quo, let’s compel students to pay for something that they don’t want and may not use. Let’s help out those student union friends of ours who are struggling to adapt to the 21st century. Let’s go back to creating a nice cushy cash flow with no accountability and no consequences.’

This bill is a new tax on students. It is a disgraceful return effectively to compulsory unionism. It represents a shameful broken promise. It is poorly drafted and will cause the government far more headaches than it has actually realised. And it treats adult students with utter contempt. It is only a very thinly veiled attempt to reinvigorate student unions, guilds—call them what you like. We in the coalition say no to new taxes, leave students alone and treat them with some basic respect. Student unions can survive and thrive if they are accountable to their membership, if they respond to the needs and wishes of their members. But this bill and these guidelines will not only return to the bad old days of effective compulsory student unionism but they go even further by imposing these draconian obligations on tertiary education providers. I urge the House to oppose this bill. It is regressive, it is a huge cost impost on students, and I hope I do not see it come to light!

Labels: ,

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Condolences Victorian Bushfire Victims; Report from Main Committee

House debates

Wednesday, 11 February 2009

2:15 pm

Photo of Sophie MirabellaSophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women and Youth) | Hansard source

As a nation we grieve at the horror that continues to unfold in my home state of Victoria and I rise to support the motion and to pay my respects and express my deepest sympathies to those who have lost family members, loved ones and workmates. The sheer scale of loss of human life, as incomprehensible as it is, has horrified us all. I think it is true to say that universal grief has gripped our nation like never before during a natural disaster. We need to remember that every individual who did not escape the fires had dreams, had hopes, had plans. The fire did not discriminate between young and old. All these lives cut tragically short, leaving loved ones behind. The people who have left us are in our thoughts and prayers. All we can hope is that that knowledge provides some small comfort to those who are left behind.

In my electorate, we mourn the deaths of John and Sue Wilson. Like so many residents of the north-east of Victoria in the past, and many in the present, John and Sue stayed, defending their home in Mudgegonga, just north of Myrtleford in the Ovens Valley. To their children, Grace and Samantha: we mourn with you. It is hard enough for anyone to lose a parent; to lose both in such tragic circumstances can only compound the hurt and pain. The extraordinary conditions of this fire have shocked and tested even the most seasoned firefighters, both volunteers and professionals. This is the third fire in six years that has ravaged my part of the world—north-east Victoria. The scar tissue from the 2003 fires particularly has left an indelible mark on the landscape and the psyche of those living in north-east Victoria. In the days and months ahead we will struggle to quantify how these catastrophic fires of 2009 will impact on not just those areas affected in Victoria but the nation as a whole.

The main fire currently burning in Indi is described as the Beechworth fire and, to date, it has burnt approximately 30,000 hectares. This is in addition to over 900,000 hectares burnt during the 2003 and 2006 fires. The most recent information I have is that milder weather conditions have helped keep this and the Koetong Dry Forest Creek fire within containment lines at the moment. It is a great relief that the towns and residents in my local valleys and in my regions are not under immediate threat. We hope that—as the fires are contained, with improved weather conditions and successful backburning operations—those communities will remain safe. But they do need to remain vigilant—as do many other communities in Victoria—because it is not over. At last count, there were 300 firefighters on the ground. But for every firefighter there are several volunteers behind the scenes: the communications personnel, the CFA members keeping the sheds and equipment in working order, the SES, others preparing the food—whether, yet again, it is the women’s auxiliary of the Myrtleford CFA or the local Red Cross or just mums and dads down the road who want to do something to help—those who are working at relief centres or others donating their time to feed cattle.

The tasks being undertaken by thousands of people across the north-east and across Victoria are limitless. The list of names runs into many pages. It is quite heartening that it is not only the long-standing residents of our area who are helping but many who have moved there recently. Only the other night, I was at the Chiltern relief centre and there were three young army wives who had recently moved with their husbands to our local facility in Bandiana. They were distraught; they did not know what they could do to help. They each looked around their home and collected everything they thought could be of help and delivered it to Chiltern. That is just a very small example of the emotion, of the desire and the need to help, right across our region and right across our state.

To all of the firefighters, to their families who support them, to the crews who keep them going, to the local communities, to the businesses who have given so much: I give a very deep thank you. The lifeblood of our communities in rural and regional Victoria are our volunteers. They are our safety net. We could not survive, let alone thrive, without them. Scores of people, often whole families, stop whatever they are doing to play their part whenever a natural disaster hits—by helping their neighbours, by helping their town, by doing whatever is asked, and often even what is not asked, and by doing whatever it takes. It is humbling to not only be part of that community but also represent people who give so much of themselves in such an unassuming way. It is often those who do not have much themselves who give the most. They may not say much but their actions speak volumes. They are an example to us all in this House.

So much of the human spirit of Australia is displayed in those hours and days before official assistance, grants and programs kick in. Just one local example is the coordination of feed for local stock. Local farmers, who themselves have suffered years of drought, have battled drought, bureaucracies and challenging world market conditions, have not thought twice about donating what, in dollar terms, is quite a sizeable amount of feed to their fellow farmers. A very special thankyou to Stephen Street, who is coordinating that effort locally in Mudgegonga. It also gives me great pride to represent a part of Victoria where there are these self-starters, these people who do not wait to be told but do what needs to be done.

Still in shock, exhaustion has set in. I have been speaking to quite a few of our local volunteers on the ground. They have given me a few messages and they have asked me to pass them on, which I will do here today. They are all touched by the generosity of not only fellow residents of north-east Victoria but also people right across the nation and throughout the world. There is a very real and immediate need for counselling across the board, from the tough weather-beaten farmer to the impressionable young child.

I remember the emotional damage left by the 2003 and 2006 fires. Long after the cameras have gone and the media attention fades away, the scars are still there. The coordination of counselling is an urgent priority right across the state. In the weeks to come, many who have experienced the horror—including the volunteers, the police and Army personnel—will need help, whether it be an understanding ear from friends or professional help. Our communities must be equipped to make such help available. It is these intangibles that will determine, as much as the bricks and mortar will determine, how well and how rapidly our communities do recover.

Farmers have asked for help to get their farms operational again. In many cases it will take years for them to recover. They have asked for assistance in the form of long-term, low-interest loans; an extension of exceptional circumstances; incentives for pasture improvement; help with the repair and replacement of fencing; cleaning and enlarging dams; and of course improvement in local telecommunications.

It is not the first time telecommunications has become an issue with bushfires across Australia, but we need to learn the lessons and learn them quickly. To take one local example, Trish Carroll is the communications officer for the Mudgegonga CFA Brigade. Mobile coverage in the area is very poor. Trish Carroll’s home telephone has not been operational for over a month and is still not operational. Recently, the Carrolls were told that their complaint issue had been lost in the system. Local people are angry and justifiably so. A usable home phone is beyond a basic need. We are in the age of talking about all sorts of advanced technological means of communication and equipment, yet we need to remember that, in many parts of Australia and many parts of Victoria—often rural areas—that are not as accessible as others, a basic home phone is the starting point.

Knowing that your neighbour, your elderly relatives and your children are safe and sound during these fires is an absolute priority. Needing this assurance, needing to know that, is an essential part of the human condition. The mobile phone bills for this period are expected to be horrendous. In the great Australian spirit of giving that we have seen right across our nation—again, often the poorest of communities giving the most—perhaps it is time for telecommunications operators to donate, for the fire season, the cost of the telephone bills of those living in fire-affected areas. Again, this is a specific idea and request that has come from my constituents. The same request has been made of large corporations providing petrol to local outlets to assist with the transportation of hay and other materials. Volunteers are using their own trucks, their own funds to pay for the petrol and diesel. Perhaps some assistance could also be forthcoming in that direction.

The coverage, information and dedication of the ABC right across Victoria has been commented upon in this House. I have to repeat that our local ABC personnel have been outstanding. They have formed part of the fabric of north-east communities, giving assurance and information, which were particularly important last weekend, amidst much anxiety and much fear. They give of their time and they are truly part of our local community. Police, local council staff, VicRoads, the ambulance service and the staff at the incident control centres have all been part of the local effort. A particular personal thanks to Tony Long and Rob Charwell, who have taken time out from their very important work at the incident control centre in Ovens to keep me updated about what is going on.

Many issues have been raised. The time for questions and investigations will come. Now is not the time for me to go into these details. But I will just flag that we should be guided by many discussions on these matters that have occurred in the past and by much of the discussion that will no doubt take place once we are over the horrific circumstances of the present time.

Our thoughts at the moment are with those still recovering. I pay special tribute to Fran Bailey. She is an extraordinary member for McEwen. So many of us have been touched by these tragic events over the last few days, and if ever there was a person who is a fearless and unafraid champion of the local people it is Fran Bailey. My thoughts are with her at the moment. A special thankyou to the leaders of our nation. To the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, and to the Prime Minister: thank you both for caring enough to keep personally updated by contacting me and other members in bushfire affected areas.

Personally, I am relieved and grateful that the federal government’s assistance to rebuild our Victorian communities is uncapped and unconditional. That is the right thing to do. It is a mark of respect and humanity that we all, on both sides of the House, remain united and determined to do whatever is required to rebuild, to help, to support and, above all, not to forget. In commending the motion to the House, I note that this tragedy will go down in history as the worst natural disaster our nation has faced, and the appropriate response in due course needs to be of that scale as well. I commend the motion to the House.

Labels:

Greg's View of Todays News - 02/11/2009

  • Students have praised the Rudd government for beginning to undo the damage caused by voluntary student unionism (VSU), but are concerned Labor's proposed services and amenities fee will be controlled by universities.

    • Opposition youth spokeswoman Sophie Mirabella said the details of the legislation would be closely scrutinised.

      "As a starting point, our policy is to oppose compulsory fees on students," Ms Mirabella said.

      Ms Mirabella also attempted to cast doubt over the promise that the legislation would prohibit money being spent for political purposes.


  • Sophie Ms Mirabella, whose electorate of Indi contains communities affected by the bushfires, spoke not just of the emotional heartache but the expected financial hardship. Mobile telephone bills would be "horrendous" following the disaster.


  • An architect says fire bunkers should be included when rebuilding communities affected by Victoria's worst bushfires.


      • An architect says fire bunkers should be included when rebuilding communities affected by Victoria's worst bushfires.

        Retiring Victorian Police Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon will run a new agency that will help bushfire ravaged communities rebuild.

        Professor of Architecture at RMIT Norman Day says a simple and inexpensive concrete bunker in the ground next to or underneath each house would be the best protection
    • Professor of Architecture at RMIT Norman Day says a simple and inexpensive concrete bunker in the ground next to or underneath each house would be the best protection from fierce fires.

      He says little can be done to give new houses more protection.
      • This is a brilliant idea. With existing homes, a six foot concrete cube could still be built - especially on hilly properties where it could be cut back into the earth. - post by gnaylor

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Labels: , ,

Friday, January 23, 2009

Sophie slams cleric’s rant

Source: Wangaratta Chronicle - 23 Jan 09

Marital rape, violence "not acceptable" here

SOPHIE Mirabella (MHR, Indi) has described comments made by a Melbourne Islamic cleric about raping and hitting women as outrageous, disgusting and unacceptable in the 21st century.

In a recorded lecture entitled, The Keys to a Successful Marriage, Samir Abu Hamza said it was impossible for a man to rape his wife even if she refused to have sex.

He also outlined the ways in which it is acceptable for a husband to hit his wife if she is disobedient.

Mrs Mirabella, the Federal Shadow Minister for Women, said rape or violence, whether in marriage or not, is not acceptable by Australian standards.

"All women, whether they are born here or choose to make Australia their home, no matter what their religious background or cultural upbringing, have a right by Australian law to live in peace," she said.

"Those who violate these laws need to feel the full force of them when they do so."

Mrs Mirabella said she joined the vast majority of Australian Muslims in condemning the comments.

"All fair minded Australians would be horrified to read the comments of Abu Hamza condoning behavior which is so diametrically opposed to our way of life," she said.

The cleric’s comments come only a few weeks after a report by the Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria showed some Muslim leaders in Victoria condone rape in marriage, domestic violence and the exploitation of women.

Labels: , , ,