What are the lessons for the Liberal Party from the Victorian Government’s historic loss in the 2014 state election?
What message should Tony Abbott and the Federal Liberal Party take away from this stunning defeat?
The Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance is proud to present a panel discussion and q&a on the lessons from the Victorian election with five of Victoria’s most prominent political voices: John Roskam from the Institute of Public Affairs, Christian Kerr from The Australian, former Victorian Senator Helen Kroger, Vice-President of the Victorian Young Liberals Jess Wilson, and Professor Sinclair Davidson from RMIT.
There will be significant opportunities for attendees to share their views with the panel, and for an interactive discussion to take place.
DATE: Friday, 30th of January
TIME: 6:00pm for a 6:30pm start
VENUE: Morgans at 401, 401 Collins St Melbourne
COST: $20 Adults, $10 Concession
We hope to see you there!
John Slater argues that while former Labor Minister Gary Johns’ recent call for welfare recipients to be made to use contraception is impractical, it nonetheless opens up a vital debate many would rather not have.
Former Labor Minister Gary Johns’ recent call for welfare recipients to be made to use contraception or have their payments suspended has been met with a predictable mixture of outrage and contempt, even drawing comparisons with Nazi Germany.
Under any realistic assessment, Johns’ proposal is impractical to enforce and would amount to an intolerable interference with personal liberty. That said, by bringing attention to some of the unintended consequences of the unintended consequences of Australia’s welfare state, Johns’ has opened up a conversation others would prefer closed.
If we wish to live in a society that values self-reliance and individual responsibility, there should be no state inducement or financial incentives to have children people otherwise couldn’t afford.
This is not to say that the state should prevent people below a certain income from having children altogether. This distinction was clearly lost on Sunrise host Monique Wright. During her interview with Johns she asserted that his idea “interfered with basic human rights.”
There is a human right to conceive a child with another consenting adult. However, this right doesn’t extend to having such children subsidized indefinitely by other taxpayers.
As the age old adage goes, having children is a privilege. It is also a decision not to be taken lightly. Aside from the time and emotional commitment, the changes to lifestyle and the financial burden that come with child rearing are significant and permanent.
In fact, the burden of parents providing for their offspring is arguably the biggest natural limitation on having children in the first place.
The trouble with incentives like the baby bonus and increased welfare payments is that they push the costs of raising children away from the forefront of the decision-making process. By imposing these costs on third parties – namely taxpayers – prospective parents are given the artificial choice of having children without feeling the full weight of the financial responsibility that comes with raising them.
It is a fact that children born into households of welfare dependency suffer worse outcomes in life. In Australia, young adults without at least one parent in long-term work have an unemployment rate of close to twice the average. More detailed studies conducted in America show that children of long-term dependent families completed less years in school, had lower academic results and more difficulty obtaining work as adults. The result was that these children were far likelier to become welfare recipients over the course of their lives themselves.
As Johns points out, children will always be born into undesirable circumstances. Nevertheless, by allowing parents to shirk the financial responsibilities of parenthood, welfare tied to having children makes this all the more easy.
This should not to be confused with the far more elitist view that welfare recipients, past and present, should never be parents. Rather, it is simply acknowledging that individuals currently unable to sustain themselves are not fit to assume responsibility for the care of another.
In her interview with Johns, Sunrise host Monique Wright also made the point that in Australia we are lucky to live in a civilized and inclusive society. While few would disagree with these sentiments, they are symptomatic of the general tendency of the media and public to view welfare as an unqualified right, with conditions to access an unfair indignity to recipients.
This is wrong. Australia’s welfare system represents the modern social contract under which wealth is redistributed to alleviate disability, poverty and disadvantage. Moreover, our welfare system has limited resources but is subject to a vast array of competing interests. The task of using these finite resources to satisfy the public’s unlimited demand for social services is performed by the political and policy-making processes.
Within this context, it is perfectly reasonable that policy-makers adopt measures that encourage lifestyle choices that lift people out of state dependency. Unfortunately, subsidizing people already unable to provide for themselves to have children will usually have the opposite effect of entrenching dependency and disadvantage – not just in the present, but into the future generations as well. Moreover, such spending also comes at the expense of other alternative uses more aligned with the public good, for example funding for health, education and infrastructure.
It is understandable that Johns’ suggestion that welfare recipients should be compelled to use contraception has been labeled an overreach. However, the more fundamental point that welfare cannot be allowed to undermine the values of individual responsibility and self-reliance, particularly when it comes to something as sacrosanct as parenthood, is one well worth talking about.
John Slater is the current President of the University of Queensland Liberal National Club and is in the third year of his Law/Arts degree. John’s main ambition is to lift the profile of classical liberal ideas in Australian political debate. In particular, he is interested in exposing the failings of left wing economic policy, fighting state paternalism and changing the perception of right-of-centre political thought. John has also been involved in grass roots campaigns against curfew laws limiting night time trading hours for pubs and clubs and the former Labor Government’s SSAF tax on students.
As university students enter the 2015 academic year this February, new and continuing students alike are set to be taxed. This tax is not for their further education, rather for non-educational services, the spending of which is dictated largely by unrepresentative student unions.
The Student Services and Amenities Fee, or SSAF is a yearly expanding tax imposed not withstanding of a student’s income, their wish to use the services the ‘fee’ funds, or even their ability to obtain value for money. In 2014, the average amount paid by students in SSAF equaled $280. With the increasing aspect of SSAF, new students for 2015 will pay an average amount $1300 over the lifetime of a typical 4 year degree. It’s no wonder 70% of students wish to have a university wide vote on the abolishment of the SSAF all together. (The Australian 2014)
Objections to the SSAF are not just financially motivated however, accompanying the payment of this fee is the legal requirement of compulsory membership in student unions. This requisite violates the basic rights of students to the freedom of association, the same freedom that Australian’s have advantage of in the workplace, where compulsory unionism has long been outlawed. Our university campuses however, continue to require students to join organisations that they in large have opposition too.
Jack Baker looks at the violent intersection of democratic free speech and the offence taken by some Muslims.
The attack and murder of twelve defenceless women and men in France by three Islamist men wielding assault rifles is as cowardly as it is disgusting. The supposed crime of most of the people murdered was to work at satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which in 2011 published cartoons mocking Islam and its founder Muhammad.
Sadly, this is merely the latest occurrence in a litany of absurd reactions stretching back decades. The commonality is that every time, a number of Muslims have been offended by something said, drawn or recorded about their religion, and chosen to react violently.
Following the publishing of Salman Rushdie’s book ‘The Satanic Verses’ in 1988, scores of people were killed around the world and hundreds injured. 20,000 people protested in Parliament Square in London, burning effigies of Rushdie. Bookstores in the United States and England were firebombed. The publishers or translators of the book in numerous countries were stabbed and shot.
When the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons of Muhammad in 2005, numerous Danish embassies were set on fire. Over one hundred people were killed in protests, primarily in Muslim countries. Staff members at the newspaper continue to face death threats.
When an obscure American threatened to burn the Qu’ran in 2010 and then did so in 2011, dozens of people were killed around the world. In contrast, when a Muslim cleric in Egypt burned the Bible in front of thousands of people in 2012, it went largely ignored by the media and there were no violent riots.
Scott Lynn argues that it is time to give Tony Abbott another chance and forget the Labor-Greens alliance.
In 2014 Tony Abbott and his Liberal/National led coalition removed the Carbon Tax, Removed the Mining Tax, helped create 160,000 new jobs, established Free Trade deals with important trading partners in Japan, China and South Korea (giving us the ability to have a better standard of living) and dramatically halted the people smuggler boats to a single boat but appear to be trailing in the polls approximately two years away from the next election. However, how the budget was sold did not help matters. Abbott’s heart appeared to be in the right place during 2014, and yes he should fix the budget debacle with its rapidly increasing bloated budget growth problem – yes I know that Labor largely caused the budget mess and have retreated away from its economic positioning of the 1980s, but slowly, slowly first and explain your position to the people, if bold policy or procedural measures need to be employed. Yes, slowly, slowly but not too slow.
Talk about free trade benefits with China, Japan and South Korea; along with the strengthened trade talks with India and joint military exercises. So a question has to be asked, how many Free Trade Agreements did Labor establish in six year of power? Wait … wait … Nothing, Zero, Zip, Zilch and NADA. Kevin Rudd was supposed to be a hero (in his mind), for Chinese Australians, so being caught out on video calling them Rat F###ers was probably not the wisest of his many foolish moves.
Australia’s Free Trade Deal with South Korea has the ability to raise Australian living standards, while enabling opportunities that we as Australian citizens simply would not have under Labor. So yes, it should be clearly noted that if this deal was not struck, Australia would face increased costs of over 70 percent. Plus, the probability of our important agricultural exports of various feed, livestock and crop development and ingenuity opportunities would go sadly wanting. Australia would miss out on a 5 percent increase in agricultural exports, and be a sad day for farmers – our Australian farmers of wheat, beef and dairy amongst other things.
A doubter might go off on a tangent that there is nothing for automotive suppliers, and if you are a member of Labor or the Greens with communist values this might be possible. But no, they would be terribly wrong with Korea being Australia’s third largest market that we export to for self-contained and specific motor parts – Korean tariffs will be removed to create further ventures and enterprise opportunities for Australians as well as Koreans. There will be more job opportunities, unlike Labor promising you the world and delivering very little apart from wasteful spending, debt and botched and incredibly cost projects that fail to meet a signified target set by Labor themselves.
Our Free Trade Deal with Japan will ultimately cut the tariff our beef exporters have to pay, and by doing this we create many more opportunities for Australian citizens and our Japanese counterparts. Australia wins out because Japan is the biggest buyer of Australian beef.
Electronics will be cheaper, even if Labor and the Greens with communist values would prefer for this not to be a foreseeable reality. We would have plenty more white goods and electronics, and they would be cheaper with the tariffs on these items getting shown the door – GET OUT!!! But wait there is more, as Japanese cars will be cheaper for the Australian consumer to buy, and ultimately it is your choice.
100% Australian owned telecommunication businesses will be able to gain never before seen access to supply relevant and important modes of communication services in China itself; I don’t recall Labor achieving this in six largely wasted years. Tony Abbott, Andrew Robb and Julie Bishop should all take a bow because without them 95 percent of our exports to China will not be tariff free. Even our Aged Care companies will be able to set up facilities in China, while also being able to own 100 percent of these homes and make a profit.
Now, just in case Labor and the Greens with communist values were not paying attention to the fact that Australia is also set to have a Free Trade Deal with India, they should sit up and note that it is likely to happen in the next 12 months. Even if they did not want to acknowledge this, they could be so kind to acknowledge that we now have closer diplomatic ties and security measures in place with India. Yes, Tony Abbott should be given more credit for such achievements not to mention a closer collaboration on water resources management – both countries know what drought means. I guess Labor could not have been bothered in six years of government.
In terms of Higher Education, the government has even made amendments that are careful, fair and well balanced, but you wouldn’t hear that from Labor with their vile lies about $100,000 degrees springing up as high as the eye can see. WA Labor Senator, Sue Lines has even acknowledged that Batchelor Degree fees for the University of Western Australia (covered under HECS) will be just $16,000 per annum or $48,000 across three years from 2016 – not the $100,000 that Bill Shorten and his crazy Labor mates have been banging on about. So why won’t they media pick this up and run with it? I think it is something that needs to be pursued, because surely they would prefer to give a more balanced view, instead of what many of them are currently peddling out.
Labor has pulled the wool over many University students eyes, and no I don’t think it will be easy for Bill Shorten and the majority of the Labor Party to admit that students will not pay $100,000 or more for every degree under the sun, they are too irrational to do this and they will have to be dragged kicking and screaming for there to be such a chance. Labor will not even admit that you do not pay anything upon entry of university for a Batchelor Degree, even worse they will not tell you that you would only start paying your HECS bill back (the government/taxpayer would pay for 50 percent of your course), if and when your income is $56,000 or more. Labor will not acknowledge that revised changes would make sure your HECS bill would still be linked to CPI – this sounds fair and only paying for 50 percent of your course, if you are lucky enough to earn over $56,000 should be seen as fine and reasonable unless you have a shrine of Karl Marx in your room and think the government should control your thoughts.
In terms of women in Cabinet there are now two, Julie Bishop as Foreign Minister and Deputy-Leader of the Liberal Party; and Susan Ley as Minister for Health, and even Minister for Sport. You did not hear Labor say too much about this, partly because they don’t appear to like Liberal women that get to higher positions through merit. Even in their own party they don’t think women can get there by merit, but instead try to employ a quota system that can cause both women and men missing out as a candidate when they should not.
Labor have also been incredibly quiet that Senator Marise Payne, yes a woman, is Minister for Human Services; or that Kelly O’Dwyer has been elevated on merit to the position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer; or that Senator Fiona Nash is the Assistant Health Minister, and Deputy-Leader of The Nationals in the Senate; or that Senator Michaelia Cash is Assistant Minister for Immigration & Border Protection, and Minister Assisting the Prime Minster for Woman; or even that Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services; and importantly don’t forget Karen Andrews, who is Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Science. Furthermore, Labor and the Greens appear to have duck taped their mouths with Australia officially having a Minister with the title Science Minister, again, because they pretended we did not have one because Tony changed it to the Minister for Innovation which should have been easy enough to work out even for a Greens supporter hyped up on various unknown substances. But yes, Ian Macfarlane is the ‘new’ Minister for Industry and Science.
Labor and Greens with communist values have also chosen to ignore that Australia, under Tony Abbott is playing an important part to tackle climate change, with Australia pledging $200 million over a period of four years to the international Green Climate Fund. Really, I thought the communist Greens would have been more interested.
In terms of state politics, I am deeply saddened to say that Clem Newton-Brown won almost 45 percent of the primary vote in Prahran and lost, not to the Labor candidate on 25 percent, but the Greens candidate that finished third with 24.75 percent of the primary vote – I think that is unfair as none of the other candidates got within a bulls roar of the Liberal candidate in Clem Newton-Brown who worked so hard for local businesses, education and the LGBT community. Australia and Victoria need to have a First Past the Post voting system, so the candidate with the most votes actually wins and does not get shafted due to dodgy or ill-conceived preference deals.
Since Labor winning the Victorian Election, the state has started to head down a dark and poorly lit road with hazards and problems of their own making (I get a feeling they will try and blame the Liberals and Nationals), as their will be no East-West Link and above ground boulevard through the city, no train to Melbourne Airport, no Metro Rail Link – not even the Liberals design and now no Flinders Street Station revamp, which also appears to mean no start of the art amphitheatre near the water. Unions appear to be taking over.
In NSW, Liberal Premier and good guy Mike Baird will be elected by the people of NSW in March, and I just hope that QLD Premier Campbell Newman is re-elected, especially with all the hard work he has done with strengthening the QLD budget, the economy, health, education and cracking down on many of the members of illegal motor cycle gangs like that of ‘The Hells Angels’ from peddling even more ICE and Ecstasy to the vulnerable on a boulevard of broken dreams.
Think when you vote!
Scott Lynn is a 28 year old Deakin University graduate with a Bachelor of Arts in Media and Communication who works in Aged Care.
Matt Mckenzie discusses what the nation’s wealthiest state can do to slash its deficit.
The government of Australia’s wealthiest, most successful state has plunged into deficit.
Things aren’t going well for Colin on the GST distribution front or on the royalty income front, and understandably, there are issues. I accept that lots of the government’s projects are going to be quite cool, so because I’m a helpful sort of person I’ve come up with a few ideas to halve the deficit and then fund tax reduction.
For clarity before I start, asset sales and capital investment don’t effect the state government’s operating balance.
Reform utility subsidies ($450 million)
Western Australia budgeted to spend almost $2 billion this year on utility subsidies. The Public Tranport Authority led the way at $747m, electricity subsidies were $616m, and water subsidies $583 million.
I think a lot of people accept that it’s important to ensure vital services are accessible to disadvantaged and vulnerable people, but the current mechanism of service delivery does that at enormous cost. Services are subsidised for all, regardless of usage. Effectively a family that wants to reduce bills by turning off its air conditioning during summer is supporting families that keep the appliance on. Big businesses that draw massive amounts of electricity are subsidised by those that do not.
That is not fair.
We should do away with these supply subsidies and instead give the support up front, transparently, to those who we think need it. That will sharpen people’s minds when it comes to using products that have previously been subsidised, and will ensure support is fairly targeted.
We’re half way through the financial year, so let’s assume that we reduce subsidies from January 1, with probably around half the budgeted amount unspent. That’s an expenditure reduction of $978 million. To give the state government credit, it has already announced it will reduce subsidies by $65.1 million, by forcing these departments to make reductions to their costs.
A large portion of the savings could be set aside, perhaps half, and credited directly to the accounts and smart riders of concession card holders every fortnight.*
The net impact, excluding the government’s existing savings, is a reduction of around $450 million.
Delay royalties for regions programs ($100 million)
Due to the substantial drop in royalties, this year payments from the royalties for regions program will actually exceed 25 per cent of total royalty income, the ratio specified when the program was created. Under the act, however, the spending locked in for this year must go ahead despite the fall in royalty income.
Well, that’s a bit silly.
The government should be looking to delay a number programs at least until the end of the financial year. The savings can go straight into the royalties for regions future fund and be spent on largesse for regional voters in decades to come. Please think of the children.
I’ve had a look through the budget, and to be even more helpful I thought I’d highlight a few specific line items: “Seizing the opportunities in agriculture” ($48.9 million), “Underground power in the Pilbara” ($75 million), “Regional groupings and individuals” (read as “regional shires slush fund”, $50 million). I accept that there might be strong demand for some of these programs, but if we’re being honest here, the people of Coolup, for example, have already waited 2 years to receive their $1.7 million upgrade to the regional equestrian centre. I’m sure the coming six months will race by.
Furthermore, I just looked outside my window and there are definitely above ground power lines in Perth, so I’m sure they don’t need to be underground up north.
Axe these programs/departments ($130 million)
You’ve really got to wonder why government gets involved in sports and the arts.
What sort of people go to the theatre exactly? People who wear expensive suits. They don’t need subsidies. The Department of Arts has a budget of $127 million this year. Just get rid of it. Providers in the industry can use crowd sourcing, develop partnerships with businesses, rely on private generosity or change their pricing and cost structures to survive.
In the long term this would be positive for the arts community. It would ensure it was relevant to the needs of aficionados and it would free it from bureaucratic oversight. Then they could host operas staged in cigarette factories until their hearts were content.
Elite sport receives $24.5 million. Why? If the AFL can make a billion dollars on television deals, they’ll be fine to run their own programs. Other sports may not be able to secure such high funding, but if people are interested in watching it, why should they pay for it?
The department of racing, gaming and liquor dishes out $107 million of subsidies, mostly to the racing industry as I understand it.
I can count on one finger the number of times I’ve been to a racetrack. If people can spend thousands on stupid fascinator hats they can pay for themselves to watch horses run laps. This issue is a bit more complex, as the TAB receives most of its income from gambling on racing, so it has an incentive to subsidise the industry. I’m sure the market would sort it out when TAB becomes privatised.
Again, we’re halfway through the year so I divided the savings by two.
And in the out years
For this financial year, we’ve cut the deficit in half in just three easy moves. In future years, the savings will add up to more than $1.2 billion annually, remembering that we would still have a very generous, but better targeted, support system for utility usage and that the royalties for region spending delay can’t be counted twice. Unless, of course, you get rid of it!
In 2016-17, adding these savings on top of the government’s projected $300 million surplus will enable a reduction of the payroll tax rate by about a third or will almost be enough to abolish stamp duty. The state government has no need to run a massive surplus because it can use asset sales to pay off debt, so a modest surplus is fine.
*Note: Around a quarter of Australians hold concession cards, so if the same portion is true in WA, that’s around 625,000 people. $450 million would be around $720 each, very generous for just half a year of public transport, water and electricity usage.
Matt Mckenzie is journalist at Business News in WA, covering economics, employment relations and agribusiness. He was formerly the UWA Guild President and co-creator of The Oak Point current affairs show on West TV.
Kerrod Gream makes the case not to reduce the GST Free Import Threshold in an obvious case of rent seeking from the retail industry.
Coming into Christmas and New Years there have been renewed calls from the retail industry to change GST Import Laws, which the industry itself acknowledges will hurt consumers. It’s been advocating a drop in the current GST free import threshold of $999.99. While many claim that Britain and Canada are examples of countries that show that low import thresholds on sales taxes are cost-effective ways of raising tax revenue that make the local retail industry more competitive, a lower threshold simply would not be feasible in Australia.
The Renewable Energy Target(RET) has long been a contentious issue. While environmental groups claim it is needed to ensure a safe, low-pollution future, others assert that it is worse than the carbon tax. Following the repeal of the carbon tax, the Liberal Government rightly put the RET in their sight, by introducing the Warburton review into the RET.
The RET debate has re-emerged in the media with Labor MP for Fraser, Andrew Leigh, making an ‘economic’ case for the RET. Leigh’s case is filled with elementary mistakes that he rarely made prior to entering parliament. In summary, his argument is that according to the Warburton Review the RET contributes to lower electricity prices. And these lower prices increases investments and create jobs, while also creating a cleaner environment.
While he claims to care about the environment, he ignores the impact the RET has on consumers and claims that it actually benefits them. Let’s look at what exactly the Warburton Review actually said: “The direct costs of renewable energy certificates contribute to higher retail electricity prices. This impact on household electricity bills is estimated to be in the range of four per cent in 2013-14 and higher for energy-intensive businesses.” The report states that, on average, in NSW the RET adds $107 onto a yearly electricity bill, and $65 and $62 in QLD and WA respectively. But that’s not all. If Mr Leigh had bothered to look at the generation costs of each energy type he would have realised that the ‘savings’ passed on consumers from the RET don’t exist either. Coal, gas, and nuclear are all by far the cheapest options for consumers(pg 56), and their power plants all have the ability to increase production in times of peak demand, unlike standard renewable energy resources(outside of hydro-electric). Mr Leigh however is only talking about solar, and wind generation sources and again completely ignores the possibility of nuclear as a clean and efficient method of producing electricity.
Mr Leigh then goes onto state the amount of jobs that are ‘created’ through this legislation. Not only does this ignore the fact that there are unseen jobs that aren’t created in other sectors due to the higher cost of electricity to the consumer giving them less discretionary spending money; it also ignores the jobs that are created in other sectors of the electricity generation sector. The coal industry directly employs 54,900 people in Australia, with potential future projects generating up to 75,000 jobs for Australian workers. But Mr Leigh ignores this and claims that only the RET can deliver these jobs. Proponents also ignore the costs of implementing the bureaucracy required to implement the RET. As well as ignoring the unseen costs of loss of manufacturing and other businesses that feel the increased cost going offshore where these governmental costs aren’t incurred.
He argues that future investment in renewables may not happen if the RET is scrapped. What does this tell a good economist(which Leigh was prior to entering parliament)? That it’s not economically viable in its current form without the government creating a mandate that people be forced to use it. But instead it’s lost investment potential to Mr Leigh, investment that would occur in other areas of the economy if they failed to occur in the renewable energy sector. But again, he continues to say the Liberal Government is attacking jobs and investment, while saying the only way for the renewable sector to operate in Australia is for everyone else to be forced to pay more for their electricity and harm every day Australians.
For people that claim to hate corporate welfare the Greens and Labor sure love giving it to the renewable energy sector, while ruling out the cheaper and cleaner alternative that is nuclear energy. Encouraging nuclear power into Australia’s energy mix could turn the 2,000 already employed in nuclear related industries into 37,000, while not forcibly increasing costs to the consumer and being able to survive without inefficient quick fire gas generators when peak demand increases substantially.
Rather than continuing to hamper our economy with these Renewable Energy Targets Mr Leigh should be advocating for their removal and open up the Australian market to more economically viable alternatives.
On the 27th of December 2014 my family and I descended upon Hellenic Republic in Brunswick to celebrate my grandparents’ 50th wedding anniversary. Given the season, plenty of food had been consumed by everyone in the last couple of days, so plenty of meat from the banquet was leftover.
I politely asked the waitress if I could have some of the meat and dips packaged up to take home, her response shocked me. The young lady stated that I could do so, however I had to sign a waiver declaring that I accept all responsibility if I suffer any illness from the food I asked to be packaged. When I quizzed the young lady on why I had to sign this document she indicated that it was because of City of Moreland regulation. I nearly choked on my succulent slow cooked lamb as I heard this information.
This is yet another case of the nanny state and continuous over regulation from government and regulatory bodies. It is in fact mind-boggling at times how these laws are passed through. I couldn’t even take some lamb home and reheat without signing a ludicrous waiver. A friend ate recently at the Kew equivalent of Hellenic Republic, governed locally by the City of Boroondara, where no such waivers had to be signed for ‘doggy-bags’. Ironically, this person did not bring upon himself food poisoning.
University of Western Australia Student Rebecca Lawrence discusses how the Australian National Union of Students fails students – and is in the process of destroying itself:
I have always been outspoken about my views on the National Union of Students. The organisation is neither national nor united, and certainly doesn’t represent the best interests of students. It is no secret that I, along with most ordinary students in this country, believe that university student unionists have no right pay tens of thousands of other students’ dollars to the NUS every year in affiliation fees, much less pay for their own flights and accommodation on junkets several times a year. Yet, year after year, our voices go seemingly unheard and the NUS marches forward, as deaf to the concerns of ordinary students as ever, just as lefty-charged and anti-democracy as its predecessor was until the day it died (the Australian Union of Students, which dissolved under the leadership of 1983 President Julia Gillard due to uncontrollable levels of debt, disunity and corruption).
Or does it? Despite what one would expect from a NATIONAL Union of Students, the NUS only managed to achieve an affiliation rate of around 50% this year – of Australia’s 39 universities, only 20 affiliated to NUS in 2014 (not one university in Queensland affiliated). As the NUS’ income is almost solely dependent upon the money it collects in affiliation fees, this meant that the Union racked up a deficit of over $95,000 over the last 12 months. A leaked audit shows that the deficit over the last three years amounted to $366,360. Unsurprising as this is (the Union is run by Labor students), this fact should come as a grave concern to all students, who are forced to pay for the NUS’ spending through their compulsory student union fees (the Student Services and Amenities Fee, or SSAF – around $280 per year, per student).