Who should get a free education?
Professor Douglas Kirsner writes
: Re. "A floral tribute to the federal MPs who got a free ride at uni
" (Friday). Asserting there’s hypocrisy involved in cabinet ministers who benefited from Whitlam’s "free education" increasing the requirement of current students to pay back increased fees is a cheap shot and comparing apples with oranges. As always, a historical perspective is important. The massive cost of mass education cannot be compared with the relatively low cost of educating the few. Whitlam’s "free education" was free only for the small elite who could make it to universities. The "free education" for the lucky few cost the budget a relatively small amount. It was Labor’s John Dawkins who revolutionised higher education in Australia in 1987 by moving to mass higher education, which, of course, costs enormously more money. To help finance this Neville Wran innovated the idea of HECS, where students after graduation having reached a given earning capacity would start paying back a proportion of the costs of their education.
Governments since have increased the number of places at universities and deregulated them. The current government has extended this further by introducing the ability for non-university tertiary students studying for diplomas to borrow for their studies. Surely this is a commendable massive extensive of opportunity to everyone that is punishing no one. "Free fees for all the student" is a great socialist utopian battle cry that was only achieved when there were only a few students.
Colin Smith writes:
Why are people who are training to be athletes or military officers considered to require and deserve a free tertiary education with a generous living allowance, while people training to be doctors, lawyers, accountants, economists, teachers, nurses, librarians, physiotherapists, dentists, social workers and scientists are not?
Avast, me hearties!
Bryan Bilham writes:
Re. "What goes on water stays on water
" (Thursday). I am responding to Greg Poropat's letter. Poropat writes:
One question that I don't think has been asked of the government is if Customs/Border Patrol/naval personnel confiscate (steal) mobile phones, GPS devices etc from asylum seekers and, if they do:
If this does happen, is it piracy? The International Maritime Bureau defines piracy as: the act of boarding any vessel with an intent to commit theft or any other crime, and with an intent or capacity to use force in furtherance of that act. "
- Under what legal authority they do so; and
- What happens to the confiscated (stolen) materials.
Poropat's reference to piracy is a serious one, and deserves more substantiation than quoting a very simplistic definition attributed to the International Maritime Bureau. His paragraph seems to take no consideration of the fact that it is the United Nations thar issues the governing legislation involving piracy.
Perhaps Poropat should look at the originating UN definitions of "piracy" and "armed robbery" in this context. They are not simple and involve many factors, such as territorial waters and the ownership and operation of the potentially offending pirate vessel.
I assure you that my aim is purely to see more informative and less simplistic reporting in what appears to be a veiled accusation. I have no political motivation. Some comment, however brief, would be much appreciated.