Anthony Albanese - How long? -2-

[peetoo]

Student debt relief and free Tafe places is certainly a good starting point if they hope to win an election.

Labor collaborating with greens for young votes. And collaborating with teals for retiree votes?

Pincer movement on the coalition of greed

 

[Balls In]

A clarification. Qantas is 100% privately owned. Saying that Qantas is the national airline is a bit like saying Telstra is the national telco imho.

But there can be no doubt that Qantas receives the sort of preferential treatment from Federal Government decision making and legislation that is not available to most private companies in this country. That is partly related to the historical fact of Qantas once being the publicly owned national airline of Australia and partly related to the strategic economic and social importance of air travel especially internationally to a nation.

In my view the privatisation of Qantas from 1992, with its merger with the government owned domestic carrier to being fully privately owned company in 1997 was an example of political dogma triumphing over common sense. Because what we now now have is a privately owned airline business that is expected to act in the interests of its institutional and private shareholders but is still protected and bound by government legislation and regulations. Those rules provide it not only with a protection from the forces of the competitive market but also require it to act in the interests of the Australian government on occasions (last month's provision of free flights to Australia from Malta for Australian citizens escaping the Middle East conflict being the latest example of that).

But having scrambled the egg of air transport during the 1980/90s free market fetish we can't go back to unscrambling it.

And expecting the Prime Minister or Transport Minister under those arrangements to not have a close working relationship with the CEO and Board of Qantas is not just naive but would be totally unworkable under existing arrangements. That's where the tabloid bleating about inappropriate relationships between Albanese and Joyce becomes wilfully disingenuous.

But we can do is demand and expect that Albanese and all other MPs and public servants to not abuse that relationship for private gain. Accepting membership of an exclusive private club with benefits that is not available to most of the people they serve is something that should not be tolerated. As a minimum, every one of the government MPs, judges and public servants (and their plus ones) who have Qantas Chairmans Club membership should be required to forfeit that membership and/or fork up the full cost of that membership from their own funds (and Qantas directed to bill them the full cost of providing the service).

This principle applies as much to Peter Dutton, federal and state MPs, premiers, public servants and judges as it does to the current PM btw.

The trouble being that the current bleating over Albanese's actions is mostly happening because of the binary political capital to be gained. The principle sidelined yet again.

What Qantas is is the worst of all worlds for Australian's. A private company that is protected by govt from competition, gets bailed out using taxpayer dollars when business is tough and makes obscene profits price gauging us all other times. At the stoke of a pen it can halve the value of its frequent flyer points and to hell with us. That's why it's NOT ok for the transport Minister now PM to accept bribes off them.

 

[peetoo]

Labor collaborating with greens for young votes. And collaborating with teals for retiree votes?

Pincer movement on the coalition of greed

 

[Festerz]

Student debt relief and free Tafe places is certainly a good starting point if they hope to win an election.

Sure is.

But is it good policy? Everybody loves to get something for free - but the reality is that government programs are never free - it's funded by taxpayers and by reallocating funding from other areas. It can also lead to unintended consequences on the market - in this case the training market which is funded and serviced by a mix of public and private providers.

Will this displace the private funding that supports a large chunk of the specific up-skilling undertaken in both. TAFE and non-TAFE venues to meet the needs of employers? Most industries are heavily involved in funding the training market because they realise that they benefit from having a better trained workforce. Will this change?

This is a pre-election promise/policy so it will be relatively light on details. I'd like to see the background analysis that provides the clear independent analysis that says that this is the best use of taxpayer funds.

And of course its all about the implementation. Which, as we saw with the NDIS, is where great plans hatched from even grander ideals, can become an epic bureaucratic and financial mess.

No one can argue with the intent and focus of this policy. And it is also good politics. But the devil is in the detail.

 

[JackOutback]

Sure is.

But is it good policy? Everybody loves to get something for free - but the reality is that government programs are never free - it's funded by taxpayers and by reallocating funding from other areas. It can also lead to unintended consequences on the market - in this case the training market which is funded and serviced by a mix of public and private providers.

Will this displace the private funding that supports a large chunk of the specific up-skilling undertaken in both. TAFE and non-TAFE venues to meet the needs of employers? Most industries are heavily involved in funding the training market because they realise that they benefit from having a better trained workforce. Will this change?

This is a pre-election promise/policy so it will be relatively light on details. I'd like to see the background analysis that provides the clear independent analysis that says that this is the best use of taxpayer funds.

And of course its all about the implementation. Which, as we saw with the NDIS, is where great plans hatched from even grander ideals, can become an epic bureaucratic and financial mess.

No one can argue with the intent and focus of this policy. And it is also good politics. But the devil is in the detail.

Free education is always good policy, imo.

And governments can afford anything, they just can't afford everything. Education and training should always be a top priority and it's one that comes with a return on investment.

 

[MJG14]

As someone currently studying and seeing my HECS debt increase, I'm very happy about this policy. Didn't think Albo would do it, but well done

 

[Rotayjay]

It'll be a massive vote-winner in that key demographic of 18-to-40-year olds who might otherwise vote Greens or Liberal.

The young, idealistic 18-year-olds (liable to vote Greens) will feel less burdened by the prospect of studying if they feel the Labor government is on their side, even if they don't have a lot of debt yet.

The twentysomethings and thirtysomethinhgs might think of voting for Dutton with his false promise of a detatched house with a yard in a new development. They might still be carrying HECS debt, and would certainly appreciate having that slashed by 20%. It's especially meaningful to graduates who have just gotten into full-time work, open their ATO portal and think '**** - how long is that going to take to pay off?'

 

[Golden_6]

As a younger accountant who certainly doesn’t want to vote Liberal, I was seriously considering doing so based purely on the commitment to reverse the terrible new tax agent obligations introduced by the Government.

The announcement today has probably swung me back towards Labor again.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Labor continuing to show they are nothing but the Democrat's knock off Temu version down under. "Cancelling" HECS debt is just another fake ploy to buy votes taken right out of the Democrat playbook. A wonderfully exploitive approach typical of the Left and unless they make a corresponding cut elsewhere to account for the debt write off, is just a cost passed onto the tax payer. Socializing the cost of those who have benefited from a university education to those who have not. Typical champagne lefty policy designed to spit in the face of hardworking Australian's as usual.

 

[AvantGardener]

Its interesting the right are seen to be selfish motivated by self interest with things like negative gearing and CGT 50% discount, environment issues etc while the left are the moral adjudicator's doing what is right for society. Yet here we are discussing the self interest of HECS debt write off being a big vote winner. It seems self interest is everywhere, the only difference is the left try to mask it (and mask it pretty well I might say).

 

[Gough]

Until the government bins Morrison's shithouse jobs ready graduate scheme this is just tinkering at the edges.

 

[eddiesmith]

According to The Guardian, today Albo is to announce an election promise of cutting HECS debts by 20%. That'll be a vote winner. He's announcing it here in Adelaide so I might try to attend - depending on whether they let in plebs like me off the street.

But will it actually happen? The last credit to HECS that was supposed to write off last years excess indexation still hasn’t been applied and that was promised over 6 months ago…

 

[Golden_6]

But will it actually happen? The last credit to HECS that was supposed to write off last years excess indexation still hasn’t been applied and that was promised over 6 months ago…

Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Helpful information Text of bill First reading: Text of the bill as introduced into the Parliament Third reading: Prepared if the bill is amended by the house in which it was introduced. This version of the bill is then considered by the second house. As passed by

www.aph.gov.au

It’s not difficult to find this information.

 

[Festerz]

Free education is always good policy, imo.

And governments can afford anything, they just can't afford everything. Education and training should always be a top priority and it's one that comes with a return on investment.

Can't disagree with any of that.

Although my view is that the cost of an investment is always best met by the people or organisations that benefit from the return on that investment- be it the public through a better educated informed and innovative workforce; the individual through the ability to earn a higher salary and quality of life compared to those who don't benefit from a university degree; and/or the employer/industry whose owners and shareholders get a more skilled workforce to enhance their competition and profits. Saying that it's the public/taxpayer who needs to front up for all the cost os a university degree is just poor policy on both economic and equity grounds.

And make no mistake - this is NOT an announcement about 'free education' - far from it.

This is an announcement wiping off a percentage of the the existing debt of students who have graduated and are now in the workforce and without any means testing of their capacity to bear or honour that debt. At a cost of billions.

It is a pre-election announcement designed to win votes at the next election of those who have graduated and still have a staggering debt burden. And a flow on effect to those who think it is something that it is not.

It does nothing to change the track of rapidly escalating fees of students currently in or about the enter universities. Nor does it recompense the many thousands of students who paid out a large percentage of their student debt from the early years of their employment to create a more favourable balance sheet proposition to potential lenders to enable them to get a home loan for a foothold in a broken housing market.

My point being that this policy is not the path to greater equity and access to education or living standards that it is being heralded to be.

But it will still win votes from those who are set to benefit from it and those that are placing greater emphasis on what they imagine to be what it is about than what it actually is.

 

[eddiesmith]

Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Helpful information Text of bill First reading: Text of the bill as introduced into the Parliament Third reading: Prepared if the bill is amended by the house in which it was introduced. This version of the bill is then considered by the second house. As passed by

www.aph.gov.au

It’s not difficult to find this information.

So not delivered on, took a long time to introduce it given they’d announced it last FY as if it was going to come in before indexation this year…

HECs will go up by more than 20% before this promise actually occurs, if it does…

 

[Festerz]

So not delivered on, took a long time to introduce it given they’d announced it last FY as if it was going to come in before indexation this year…

HECs will go up by more than 20% before this promise actually occurs, if it does…

Not sure why you post in these politics threads. You fail to understand or make the effort to try and understand how the Parliamentary process works in a Parliament where the elected government does not control both houses.

A promise to introduce legislation and introducing that legislation and converting it to legislation does not happen in days, weeks or even months. There's this things called Senate Committees and...

Oh never mind what's the use.

 

[eddiesmith]

Not sure why you post in these politics threads. You fail to understand or make the effort to try and understand how the Parliamentary process works in a Parliament where the elected government does not control both houses.

A promise to introduce legislation and introducing that legislation and converting it to legislation does not happen in days, weeks or even months. There's this things called Senate Committees and...

Oh never mind what's the use.

Hence the comment that today’s announcement is a nice promise that they’ll probably never ****ing deliver on…

 

[Festerz]

Hence the comment that today’s announcement is a nice promise that they’ll probably never ****ing deliver on…

So what's your point?

That governments and politicians shouldn't make promises because there's a fair chance that opposing politicians will block it?

Given that you seem to be admitting that the failure of the government to implement this particular promise on indexing higher education loans doesn't rest with the government's inaction but the actions of the opposition and cross benches, what's your solution?

 

[peetoo]

Labor continuing to show they are nothing but the Democrat's knock off Temu version down under. "Cancelling" HECS debt is just another fake ploy to buy votes taken right out of the Democrat playbook. A wonderfully exploitive approach typical of the Left and unless they make a corresponding cut elsewhere to account for the debt write off, is just a cost passed onto the tax payer. Socializing the cost of those who have benefited from a university education to those who have not. Typical champagne lefty policy designed to spit in the face of hardworking Australian's as usual.

Are the Dems balancing the books like aus labor? Lnp and it's shills have ZERO cred in this space

 

[nut]

Student debt is a cancer on society.

USA student debt is 1.74 trillion ….

 

[Rotayjay]

HECS debt was never meant to be something that takes many years or a lifetime to pay off. The clue is in the name - higher education contribution scheme. Meanwhile, every taxpayer indirectly contributes towards property investors' nest eggs with negative gearing and CGT discounts.

It's tinkering at the edges, bit it goes some way to addressing the way in which HECS has blown out from a contribution to a millstone around the necks of people who don't have the virtual guarantee of 'a good job' after uni like previous generations. Getting a trade is a much better deal for the individual than getting a degree these days.

 

[Rotayjay]

The other pre-election sweetener might be free child care, which might end the subsidy wars. It's already heavily subsidised, and every time the government lifts the subsidy, the child care centres lift their prices. A 100% subsidy for all might help address that, and be a massive vote-winner for women because let's be real - the one who stays home if working is uneconomical is the mother.

 

[peetoo]

HECS debt was never meant to be something that takes many years or a lifetime to pay off. The clue is in the name - higher education contribution scheme. Meanwhile, every taxpayer indirectly contributes towards property investors' nest eggs with negative gearing and CGT discounts.

It's tinkering at the edges, bit it goes some way to addressing the way in which HECS has blown out from a contribution to a millstone around the necks of people who don't have the virtual guarantee of 'a good job' after uni like previous generations. Getting a trade is a much better deal for the individual than getting a degree these days.

Sad but it’s line ball whether to invest in a child’s education or buy them an investment property as young as you can.

The only thing about the education is some future spouse can’t take half of the education in a divorce

 

[Gavin Excell]

Can't disagree with any of that.

Although my view is that the cost of an investment is always best met by the people or organisations that benefit from the return on that investment- be it the public through a better educated informed and innovative workforce; the individual through the ability to earn a higher salary and quality of life compared to those who don't benefit from a university degree; and/or the employer/industry whose owners and shareholders get a more skilled workforce to enhance their competition and profits. Saying that it's the public/taxpayer who needs to front up for all the cost os a university degree is just poor policy on both economic and equity grounds.

And make no mistake - this is NOT an announcement about 'free education' - far from it.

This is an announcement wiping off a percentage of the the existing debt of students who have graduated and are now in the workforce and without any means testing of their capacity to bear or honour that debt. At a cost of billions.

It is a pre-election announcement designed to win votes at the next election of those who have graduated and still have a staggering debt burden. And a flow on effect to those who think it is something that it is not.

It does nothing to change the track of rapidly escalating fees of students currently in or about the enter universities. Nor does it recompense the many thousands of students who paid out a large percentage of their student debt from the early years of their employment to create a more favourable balance sheet proposition to potential lenders to enable them to get a home loan for a foothold in a broken housing market.

My point being that this policy is not the path to greater equity and access to education or living standards that it is being heralded to be.

But it will still win votes from those who are set to benefit from it and those that are placing greater emphasis on what they imagine to be what it is about than what it actually is.

This may be more a question of accounting, but in terms of a HECs debt being reduced is it more foregone revenue than actual new spending? Is there an actual cost?

 

[Rob R]

The other pre-election sweetener might be free child care, which might end the subsidy wars. It's already heavily subsidised, and every time the government lifts the subsidy, the child care centres lift their prices. A 100% subsidy for all might help address that, and be a massive vote-winner for women because let's be real - the one who stays home if working is uneconomical is the mother.

I like the idea of free child care for working Australian families but how do we stop the child care centre owners from continuing their price hikes and massive profits.

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app