Malfoy said:
Education
* Voucher system to encourage freedom to choose schools - so give parents vouchers that cover the cost per kid of entering a public school and give them the choice to spend it on any school they want. This leads to competition between schools because the schools that are good will get the bulk of the students and the funding, and the ones that aren't so good will have to lift their standards in order to get that funding/students, so there'll be overall improvement.
Fundementalist market principles are unlikely to work in relation to a basic needs (much like health)...unless you don't believe in education for all.
As mentioned by NTB have you considered the logistics of a voucher system? (It’s hardly a new idea)
1. Public schools hardly get to choose what staff they have. They have little control over 'quality' of their teachers. A voucher system assumes that schools are flexible enough to remedy their lack of quality.
2. Selective schools, where do they fit into this scheme? Abolish selective schools?
3. does this policy make schools completely depended on voucher funding?
4. A basic understanding of market principles would suggest that there would be some very bad schools that would gain a bad reputation. Once that reputation stuck it would be unable to loose that reputation. The worst students would go to the worst schools. These schools would have much trouble attracting good staff making it even harder for the school be loose its bad reputation creating a self perpetuating system of institutionalized elitism where those schools deemed bad have no chance of ever escaping that categorization.
5. How would this voucher system work? Everyone wants the best for their kid. Wouldn't that result in every parent putting down their kid for the 'best' school? If everyone offers up their voucher of equal worth to that particular school how is that school going to differentiate? Alphabetical order of names? Random barrel draw? Maybe they can make the kids do test! No wait, we already have that it's called the selective schools test! All the good naturally clever kids end up at the best schools and all the less so bright kids end up in the lesser schools.
* Largely deregulate the syllabus so that there's more individual choice in schools. There are some things in schools that are vital - so you mandate that there are certain things that must be included in the syllabus and allow schools to develop their curriculums any other way they want. That way not only do you get the choices but then you're not forced to adhere to the awful, biased syllabi we currently have in NSW.
1. The states would never agree on which the best system for the HSC. Personally I believe the VIC system is much better. They actually teach politics.
2. The Commonwealth isn't exactly flooded with expert education policy advisor's since it really hasn't dealt with secondary education policy ever.
3. I don't trust wacky religious schools to develop their own syllabus. They already have heaps of latitude, they don't need anymore. See Christian schools out in the hills and the recent growth of Islamic schools.
Awful biased syllabi? Elaborate? Saying ATSI people were here before white people and not dedicating a whole 4 months to Menzies doesn't make the NSW HSC terribly bias. And don't harp on about how English at high school is left wing. It’s pretty much what it is at University. All this crap about needing to teach spelling in yr 12 forgets that spelling is meant to be taught in the years leading up to year 10, the presumption being that by year 12 people understand basic grammar and can spell so they can read texts and examine them.
Taxation
* Flat, or close to flat (2-tier) taxation system so that we're not discouraging people from earning more money through the so-called 'progressive' taxation system that means people who have two jobs or work hard to earn their money pay upwards of 40% of their money in tax. I don't think it's fair that people like my dad, who have 2 jobs and work 80 or more hours a week, should get taxed so badly.
Flat tax…The fact that there is a proportional income tax system in Australia doesn’t seem to discourage many people from wanting to make as much money as possible. It doesn’t discourage me. I’d choose to earn 100k gross a year rather than 60k gross a year.
I really don’t think someone struggling on 26k gross a year should pay the rate as tax the CEO of Mac Bank. In any the difference between the top and lowest tax bracket isn’t huge. Everyone has an obligation to society (no wait, you can do a Maggie Thatcher and proclaim that there is no such thing as society). The more you earn the greater your ability to assist the society in which you have taken advantage of.
Taxable income
Tax on this income
$0 – $6,000 Nil
$6,001 – $25,000 15c for each $1 over $6,000
$25,001 – $75,000 $2,850 plus 30c for each $1 over $25,000
$75,001 – $150,000 $17,850 plus 40c for each $1 over $75,000
Over $150,000 $47,850 plus 45c for each $1 over $150,000.
Immigration
* I would be much, much tougher on immigration, to be honest. I support mandatory detention for illegal immigrants, but only for say, a three-month period. I would also be very selective in who I allow in. Believe me when I say I used to (until a month ago) live in a very ethnically divided community and there were a lot of racial problems there caused by people who came here expecting a handout but who didn't want to adhere to our laws or whatever else.
Only ‘illegal’s’ or would you also tighten skilled migration from Asian nations?
* I would abolish multiculturalism and replace it with integration. I don't mind if people hold on to their religion, food, dress or whatever else, but if you don't want to respect our laws, customs, or lifestyle, you shouldn't be here in the first place. Multiculturalism is responsible for making our community divided, and it shouldn't be.
Semantics...Multiculturalism is essentially integration. Perhaps you should read DIMIA’s definition of multiculturalism carried over from the Whitlam years before you have a go at it?
Multiculturalism has been hijacked, essentially, by racists who purport that multiculturalism suggests that people should never integrate. Multiculturalism has always supported a baseline culture which is essentially obeying the law and getting a job. I’m not sure about ‘lifestyle’ or ‘customs’ or whether they can actually be defined.
Crime
* I would be a lot tougher on crime, and I would ensure we had more police. I would also make sure sentences for certain crimes were tougher - rape being foremost among them because I think it's disgusting.
More police is a wonderful idea…As for rape; it’s a very complex issue. It’s isn’t always so morally clear cut.
* I would make sure indigenous people were sentenced according to the severity of their crimes if they were involved in child abuse, instead of being allowed to cite 'cultural' defenses.
I think you will find that that is a bit of a beat up by Miranda Devine.
* I would have ensured that policing wasn't politically correct - for example, why weren't those who smashed cars at Maroubra arrested last year, yet a guy who wore an anti-Islam shirt was jailed?[sic]
I’m not sure. I hardly think the police are the bastion of political correctness. I’m pretty sure that if the police could find those who perpetrated the return attack at Maroubra they would arrest them. I don’t think the police favor Lebanese gangs. The greater number of arrests at Cronulla is probably a result of the whole disgraceful event being caught on camera.
* I would be a lot tougher on the protestors who acted as those at the G20 protest did. There's peaceful protesting (even if I generally disagree with what it stands for, I believe in the freedom of those people to protest) and then there's sheer destructive idiocy. Also, essential services such as schools and hospitals shouldn't be allowed to be neglected just because of protests. That's ridiculous.
I agree.
Indigenous Affairs
* I would remove children being abused and remove that vile piece of DOCS legislation that says indigenous kids can't be removed to non-indigenous families, which results in shortages of suitable carers for these abused kids. I would jail the perpetrators and not let the law be soft on them for cultural reasons.
That’s all well a good, but why not addresses the cause of the problem? Locking up more ATSI people simply perpetuates the problem. That doesn't solve petrol sniffing or what caused the child abuse.
* I would not apologise. It's not constructive. Instead, I'd try and improve conditions because that's practical rather than symbolic.
I thought you were going to spit out that ignorant argument that if we say sorry those ATSI people will sue the government for all we are worth. Or did you forget that argument?
I don’t think improving the condition of ATSI people includes locking them up.
Social Policy
* Abortion should be legalised, because the woman has the right to autonomy over her own body and no one should be forced to give birth. However, should the woman choose to keep the baby when the father doesn't want it, he should be able to legally opt out of paying support.
I hope irony doesn’t come back to bite you there.
The baby bonus would be cancelled, because it's ridiculous. You should only have a child if you're physically, emotionally, psychologically and financially (and by that I mean being able to provide the child with the essentials such as food, clothing, shelter, education and the like, not being mega-rich and providing it with Gucci prams or something!) ready. The baby bonus encourages irresponsible breeding and our welfare system is already overburdened without that.
I hope irony doesn’t come back to bite you there. The baby bonus doesn’t really encourage much. It’s a 5k tax rebate the financial year after the baby is born for only the first child.
How do address the falling birthrate? Do you believe women should have to leave work without pay to care for the child? Do you understand that for a great majority of working people who are not born with a silver spoon in their mouth that having a child is not financial viable and that the woman’s income is critical in that decision to have a child. Perhaps you should read HREOC’s report into paid maternity leave which, at current costing, would cost less than the rather expensive and poorly focused baby bonus.
*I'd rid the world of that disgusting, patronising thing known as affirmative action. It's discrimination against males, for one, and it patronises me because it means I get the job based on the fact I'm female, not because I'm the best person for it.
Affirmative action is hardly rampant. You might understand if or when you work in the private sector that women hardly dominate. Some boys love the idea of working with lots of girls. They eventually fall in love and have babies leaving the boys to get promoted faster.
*Welfare should only be given to the disabled, the aged (these days, that's people over 70 or so), or war veterans. It's given out to way too many people these days and not only means there's no incentive to work but it drains our economy.
People who work desk jobs have very different working lives to those who have to physically work their whole lives. Many manual worker’s have essentially had it by the age of 70. Most are ready to retire at 55 to 60, depending on how well they have managed their finances.
Industrial Relations
* Workchoices is good but for one thing: it doesn't go far enough. The legislation itself is too complex and too prescriptive. For a better example, look to New Zealand's clearer legislation - it's only about 50 pages long...
In what way doesn’t it go far enough? What would teachers be without their union? They would be just like their US counterparts. I hope irony doesn’t come back to bite you there and you never accept any benefits or wage increases brokered by your teachers union.
Media
* ABC should be privatised. Why is there government-sponsored media, for one? It costs nearly a billion a year, has low ratings and is extremely biased.
Yes! More dancing with the stars and ACA!
That’s enough for now. I have to work tomorrow.
