Ricky Muir & M.E.P.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

You can't even be an office admin answering phones without umpteen certificates from TAFE.

Yes you can, took me 40 years to do it.....

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Two very different worlds, both can be good $$$ spinners but if you're not going to work with your hands you need that shiny piece of paper to open the doors these days unfortunately as everyone has them so you have to be competitive.

You can't even be an office admin answering phones without umpteen certificates from TAFE.

well you pay to play for that shiny piece of paper

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

well you pay to play for that shiny piece of paper

I got no problems paying for it, I have a problem when they needlessly go up in price, to around 3x the amount, for no reason.

Whats wrong with the pricing now and why do we need to deregulate the industry?

I'm sure if rego on our cars went up 3x the price "just because", people would be complaining?

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I got no problems paying for it, I have a problem when they needlessly go up in price, to around 3x the amount, for no reason.

Whats wrong with the pricing now and why do we need to deregulate the industry?

I'm sure if rego on our cars went up 3x the price people would be complaining?

PAYG welcome to the real world

lol, that's life

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

PAYG welcome to the real world

lol, that's life

A DR spends how long at university? Multiply that by how much a degree cost per year, then amortise that across how many visits to the now educated doctor to make studying medicine worthwhile.
Want to use a doctor, then pay up as I'm pretty sure with a 300K education debt to service they will be charging a lot more.
Or maybe nobody will become a doctor and then you have to pay to go to Thailand for cough medicine prescription.
Sometimes despite what many think an education of one person can benefit society much greater then the cost of the education itself.

JP

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

A DR spends how long at university? Multiply that by how much a degree cost per year, then amortise that across how many visits to the now educated doctor to make studying medicine worthwhile.
Want to use a doctor, then pay up as I'm pretty sure with a 300K education debt to service they will be charging a lot more.
Or maybe nobody will become a doctor and then you have to pay to go to Thailand for cough medicine prescription.
Sometimes despite what many think an education of one person can benefit society much greater then the cost of the education itself.

JP

im ready to pay comrade

PAYG

[LoudPipes]

The accidental senator Ricky Muir's car show ruined by a media swarm

Date: 2 December, 2014
Tony Wright

Ricky Muir likes cars. Such is the simple pleasure of many thousands - hundreds of thousands, probably millions - of other Australians.

But thanks to the peculiarities of the Senate voting system and the assistance of a mathematically-minded svengali of outsiders, an opportunist known as the preference whisperer, Ricky Muir is quite unlike almost all motoring enthusiasts.

He is a senator.

He is also unlike most senators, but he is learning fast - not so long ago, he sacked the said preference whisperer, Glenn Druery, from his office.

What makes him different is that he was elected with a primary vote of 0.51 per cent, which if measured, say, as a part of a pie, would appear about the size of a crumb; as a slice of a road tyre, it would be a sliver of tread discarded on a raggedy bitumen bend.

Senator Muir's duties as a parliamentarian and his heart as a motoring enthusiast clashed on Tuesday.

Large numbers of motoring devotees had brought their machines, gleaming beneath a summer sun, to the lawns of Canberra's Parliament House. All sorts: hot rods, a Ferrari, a baby Fiat, muscly Mustangs, cop cars, a purple Valiant. They were there to celebrate the launch of the Parliamentary Friends of Motoring.

Senator Ricky sauntered out to inspect the metal. He took a ride in a stately open-topped 1924 Sunbeam. Nearby, the pies were warming next to the 1939 Canberra Pie Cart once patronised by Robert Menzies. The fates seemed aligned: rev-head heaven.

And then the media descended. Camera crews jostled with notebook carriers; microphones poked into photographers' vision. Questions were shouted. Senator Ricky disappeared within the swarm. He wasn't going to say a word. But he wasn't going to get near the purple Valiant that had set his heart a-thump, either.

He shifted and the swarm moved with him. He stopped and the pack piled deeper around him. He approached the pie van. The pies turned out to be cold, but he grabbed one anyway.

The journalists had a single question, and it had nothing to do with cars. They wanted to know how Senator Muir might vote on the government's attempt to deregulate universities.

It had come to this. An accidental senator with a vote so low it could barely be calculated had been elevated for a moment, at a car show, by the vagaries of a weird Senate to the status of a major player. His vote meant something. An entire government's hopes, billions of dollars, could rest upon it.

Elsewhere, another senator, Tasmania's Jacquie Lambie, voted in as a PUP, now a rottweiler independent, was taunting Senator Muir, her sometimes ally, declaring a working class fellow like him wouldn't be able to afford to educate his five children if he helped give the government what it wanted on universities.

The car show was quite ruined for Senator Ricky.

And, it would turn out, it would all be for nothing.

In this Senate, a star can fall as fast as it arose. PUP, Lambie and other Senators had already aligned against the government, and the much ballyhooed university legislation was sunk, though no-one, least of all Senator Muir, knew it then.

He shuffled back into Parliament House, all those cameras and microphones and notebooks shuffling and fluttering about him, still saying nothing, no Valiant action available to him, leaving all those innocent motoring enthusiasts open-mouthed by their jalopies, sympathising with their champion and more than a little horrified to witness what happens when an ordinary bloke who likes cars gets the word Senator in front of his name.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/the-accidental-senator-ricky-muirs-car-show-ruined-by-a-media-swarm-20141202-11ygjs.html

Senate votes down Abbott government's higher education changes

The Age
Date: 2 December, 2014
Matthew Knott

The Abbott government's hopes of ending the parliamentary year with a budget win have been dashed after one of its centrepieces – the plan to allow universities to set their own fees - failed in the Senate.

The government's higher education package was voted down 33-31 tonight - a major blow to its reform agenda, and to its budget repair task, blowing a $5 billion hole in its already deficit-laden balance sheet.

Palmer United Party senators Glenn Lazarus, Zhenya "Dio" Wang and independents Nick Xenophon and Jacqui Lambie voted against the government's package with Labor and the Greens.

Despite key crossbenchers indicating today they wouldn't vote in support of the changes, the government successfully moved to extend Senate hours to ensure a vote.

Education Minister Christopher Pyne has been working relentlessly to win over the crossbenchers but it appears his efforts did not impress Senator Lazarus.

Earlier today, Senator Lazarus said the Palmer United Party would not strike a deal with the government on higher education, accusing Mr Pyne of harassing him via text messages.

Senator Lazarus, who was hospitalised yesterday with kidney stones, accused Mr Pyne of "embarrassing himself" by inundating the senator with text messages asking him to support the proposals.

Only minutes later, Senator Xenophon also announced he would vote against the government's reforms.

Motoring Enthusiast Party senator Ricky Muir - who earlier in the day went to great lengths to avoid questions on whether he would back the changes - voted in support of the government's bill. Crossbench senators Bob Day, John Madigan and David Leyonhjelm also voted for the changes.

Labor said the failed vote was another "humiliating" defeat for the government.

"This is a sweet victory for everyone who has fought Tony Abbott's plans for $100,000 degrees – but it is not over yet," Labor leader Bill Shorten and the opposition's higher education spokesman Kim Carr said in a statement.

"The Abbott government has made it clear that they will continue to try to push through plans to deregulate university fees, rip billions out of our universities and saddle students with a lifetime of debt."

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/senate-votes-down-abbott-governments-higher-education-changes/ar-BBgdZ1V

[cheap]

Ricky refuses to answer questions
Ricky's minders call the coppers so as to ask the journalists to leave him alone
Ricky has no difficulty taking home his weekly pay check

[superyob]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I got no problems paying for it, I have a problem when they needlessly go up in price, to around 3x the amount, for no reason.

Whats wrong with the pricing now and why do we need to deregulate the industry?

I'm sure if rego on our cars went up 3x the price "just because", people would be complaining?

Fair point, but is the cost of a degree fully covered by current fees or are they subsidised by the tax payer?

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by superyob

Fair point, but is the cost of a degree fully covered by current fees or are they subsidised by the tax payer?

Tax payer subsidized most likely, but that's like anything really isn't it? Healthcare is subsidized too.

I'm not too sure to be honest I've been in the TAFE system since 2010 and in 2013 I did a course through an RTO instead of a TAFE, which cost me $2500 for 10 days :S

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by superyob

Fair point, but is the cost of a degree fully covered by current fees or are they subsidised by the tax payer?

I still owe 60K from my degree finished 15 years ago. Of course my education was subsidised by the taxpayer. As at the time the taxpayer felt educating itself was a worthwhile investment. I'm not so sure how the taxpayer feels today.
Nobody has every suggested what my degrees actually cost the community. I know I will be paying over 150K for it when its paid off.

Had I not got the degrees Id probably have an average job earning circa 1500 per week (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6302.0) and pay the according amount of tax.
But with my degrees I earn a 'bit' more than that and pay more tax. I also spend more living increasing my GST contribution.
Over a career I am sure not only will I repay the investment several times over but contribute to society more then had I not gone to University.
I do not mean to say that I am worth more, better than or contribute more than someone without a degree. I am simply stating in my case, this is my scenario and experience.

[LoudPipes]

The more you can educate the population the bigger the benefit for the future of the community.

The initial costs are paid back in tenfold.

Make access to education harder and social decline will follow.

It spreads a wider divide between the haves and have nots and allows better control of the masses by the few.

Only fools or the powerfully corrupt would try and decrease the education standard across the board and produce a population that can’t compete industrially or technologically with other Nations.

I remember once they were calling Australia the clever country, it’s getting too clever for its own good by the sound of it.

[Brazen]

So Muir voted for the deregulation of uni fees...

[Maka]

Originally Posted by Brazen

So Muir voted for the deregulation of uni fees...

I'm not surprised, he's now pigeonholed himself...
What was his take on the fuel excise again?

cheers, Maka

[superyob]

While jpblue1000 and loudpipes make a fair point about the need for educated people such as doctors and engineers and others, in this current debate about university fees, those points represent one point of view (which is still valid). Another side of the argument is the point of view that I and many others see. Not every university graduate will become a positive contributor to Australian society, or even graduate at all, leaving the taxpayer out of pocket yet again. I find it vulgar that tax payer funds are supporting rude, ungrateful, screeching, self-entitled, foul mouthed, ill-mannered socialists who wish to destroy the fabric of society with their objectionable minority ideas and marches and politically motivated thuggery, dressed up as activism. If the prices of university fees are increased so as to make it unaffordable to these morons, then I think that is a saving overall…

Maybe Ricky Muir has this point of view as well or is just being told which way he has to vote. Either way it's better for Australia.

[dead_man00124]

But how would you separate the people trying to get ahead to the leechers?

[simon varley]

perhaps you make the fee structure contingent on actually graduating? If you bail after a year or two you get hit for the full whack but if you graduate you get the lower rate? No idea how you enforce the repayments from a burger flipping uni dropout though...

[superyob]

Originally Posted by dead_man00124

But how would you separate the people trying to get ahead to the leechers?

Lift entrance standards beyond the mediocre requirements inplace now.

Good grades are not a guarantee but would be a fairly good indicater as to the student's intentions...

Some courses only need a pass in senior English to gain access. Not very convincing but then again there would be those who are striving to better themselves and that's the best they can do.

Personally, I think that the notions of 'equality' and 'fairness' have taken on a socialist, ideological meaning to ensure that those who desperately don't deserve, will get, at the expense of those who have put in an effort and achieved...

The sooner these two words, in their present interpretation, become history. the better...

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by superyob

.

Personally, I think that the notions of 'equality' and 'fairness' have taken on a socialist, ideological meaning to ensure that those who desperately don't deserve, will get, at the expense of those who have put in an effort and achieved...

The sooner these two words, in their present interpretation, become history. the better...

I tutor (for free) at university on occasion and am yet to find a local student that desperately doesn't deserve to be there, and those who put in the effort and achieved are certainly there. Sure there are many that don't achieve as much as we would like, but they have achieved entry on academic merit rather than parental finances like the good old days.
We have too many full fee paying students clogging the class rooms and demanding lecturer attention over the local students. Great for the university balance sheet not so good for well rounded educations.
This I see as a problem with deregulation. Who will be able to afford a degree or be prepared to borrow to educate themselves, foreign students will for sure, and they will make the universities rich, but what about our local students and in the end society? The US model illustrates what I fear.
As a part of the overall budget university education is relatively minor 1-2 percent of GDP. I'm happy to waste a bit of money here on unsatisfactory education results for some for the significantly better return it gives to many more students and the community.
Socialism is not a bad word when it comes to equality in education.
JP

[LoudPipes]

Everybody should be educated.

This allows the population to form its own opinions instead of being led by others.

This is the fundamental reason a dictatorship will execute and imprison all the educated and academics first, so there is far less dissentience in the population.

It was different when I went to Uni but with my children, most of their friends who were earthy

Originally Posted by superyob

rude, ungrateful, screeching, self-entitled, foul mouthed, ill-mannered socialists who wish to destroy the fabric of society with their objectionable minority ideas and marches and politically motivated thuggery, dressed up as activism

came from well to do families.

Families that will still be able to afford to send their activist children to University along with the financial competing international students.

Once they grow out of their trendy activism they generally fall into line with the thinking of their parents, become the new political and business leaders and continue the control of the less educated.


Education for all is what balances community thinking and helps keep society honest.

[cheap]

Everyone is now educated. Kindergarten to high school.

The issue I see is the great numbers of people who further their education with the view that a job commensurate to their perceived greatness awaits them.

In reality what's been created is industrial scale hubris.

[LoudPipes]

Originally Posted by cheap

Everyone is now educated. Kindergarten to high school.

The issue I see is the great numbers of people who further their education with the view that a job commensurate to their perceived greatness awaits them.

In reality what's been created is industrial scale hubris.

Australian schools do not offer a high enough education standard for Australia to compete with the rest of the 1st world.

To make it harder for Australians to obtain further education is to allow Australia to slip behind.

Australia has already lost the ability to compete at a manufacturing level, are we to fall behind as a technical one as well.

Sure further education isn’t for everyone but for those that have natural ability or a driven desire, education should be easily accessible.

Not just for those with deep pockets.

Universities supply many more degrees than Doctors and Lawyers, they produce professional managers, business people, scientists, mathematicians, skilled engineers of all vocations and the list goes on and on and on.

I can’t even fathom why anyone would want to disadvantage a big part of the population and put Australia’s knowledge base at risk.


The prerequisite for many positions is Tertiary education and there is a good reason for that, employers want to compete with the best they can get.

Without it they are also rans.

Think about that on the world stage.

My smart *** comment: Jacqui Lambie for Prime Minister.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by cheap

Everyone is now educated. Kindergarten to high school.

The issue I see is the great numbers of people who further their education with the view that a job commensurate to their perceived greatness awaits them.

In reality what's been created is industrial scale hubris.

Another excellent point of view, in my opinion, that shows that there is more to consider than some banal notion of 'fairness'...

[noflac52]

It is now a requirement for nurses to be educated in universities and a large proportion of these will come from lower socio economic circumstances.

Would anyone like to see them priced out of the education market?

Now that would really lower our world standards not to mention the obvious lack of health care that would eventuate!

[cheap]

Originally Posted by LoudPipes

Australian schools do not offer a high enough education standard for Australia to compete with the rest of the 1st world.

To make it harder for Australians to obtain further education is to allow Australia to slip behind.

Australia has already lost the ability to compete at a manufacturing level, are we to fall behind as a technical one as well.

Sure further education isn’t for everyone but for those that have natural ability or a driven desire, education should be easily accessible.

Not just for those with deep pockets.

Universities supply many more degrees than Doctors and Lawyers, they produce professional managers, business people, scientists, mathematicians, skilled engineers of all vocations and the list goes on and on and on.

I can’t even fathom why anyone would want to disadvantage a big part of the population and put Australia’s knowledge base at risk.


The prerequisite for many positions is Tertiary education and there is a good reason for that, employers want to compete with the best they can get.

Without it they are also rans.

Think about that on the world stage.

My smart *** comment: Jacqui Lambie for Prime Minister.

We have very high levels of education, what makes you think otherwise?

I would argue that we are better educated than Mexicans and Thai's but that hasn't stopped local manufacturing going offshore.

I would point out that since the notional "free university" there has never been more higher educated people in Australia, but according to you we're still going backwards.

I would argue that our education system is so good, that overseas people come here to learn and then take their new skills offshore to compete against us.

BTW, are you a representative of the teachers union, because you certainly sound like you're reading from their script. Note my wife is a teacher and I read her Union propaganda/newsletter regularly.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by noflac52

It is now a requirement for nurses to be educated in universities and a large proportion of these will come from lower socio economic circumstances.

Would anyone like to see them priced out of the education market?

Now that would really lower our world standards not to mention the obvious lack of health care that would eventuate!

People apparently want qualified university trained nurses treating them.

Has anyone done a cost benefits analysis of university trained nurses V's old school trained, or do Australians assume that qualifications, processes and controls regime will save us. I suspect the reason nurses need university skills is to minimise the risks to hospitals "untrained staff" potential for litigation and so on.

[LoudPipes]

Originally Posted by cheap

We have very high levels of education, what makes you think otherwise?

I would argue that we are better educated than Mexicans and Thai's but that hasn't stopped local manufacturing going offshore.

I would point out that since the notional "free university" there has never been more higher educated people in Australia, but according to you we're still going backwards.

I would argue that our education system is so good, that overseas people come here to learn and then take their new skills offshore to compete against us.

Australia is a part of the Asia community and doesn’t just compete with them on cheap labour alone.

While Asian countries continue to put more emphasises on the importance of education, Australia will become even less relevant in the region.

Plus this and the high school figures are no better.:

‘wake-up call for education community’: Garrett


The poor performance of primary schools will focus more attention on the federal government’s implementation of the Gonski report on school improvement. Last night Schools Minister Peter Garrett said that the “results are a wake-up call for the Australian education community, parents and governments”. He will use the results to turn up the pressure on state governments to agree to a new funding model.

Australian Education Union federal president Angelo Gavrielatos said it was a wake-up call for all politicians. “The Gonski review found that the current funding arrangements are failing our children and the nation as a whole,” he said.

Governments needed to finalise the new school funding model, Mr Gavrielatos said. “The Gillard government has introduced legislation, the platform now exists for negotiations not only to begin but be finalised as soon as practicable in the interests of our children and the nation as a whole.”

The PIRLS and TIMSS studies are co-ordinated by the Netherlands-base International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement and are highly regarded internationally.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/australian_students_get_on_global_3ZvsUhpHrQLqzpGb 1Ew4aP


That is taken from a report 2 years ago and nothing has improved.

Originally Posted by cheap

BTW, are you a representative of the teachers union, because you certainly sound like you're reading from their script. Note my wife is a teacher and I read her Union propaganda/newsletter regularly.

No I’m an Aussie who spent most of his working life in North America and a shorter period in Japan.
My wife owned and run a Human Resources Company in New York.
My background in Investment Banking and Manufacturing.
Since I’ve come back home a few years ago to retire here I’ve noticed a big change in Australia.
I left a country with an ‘Aussie she’ll be right’ attitude to most things and returned to a country where everyone complains among family and friends about the over regulation and the self-serving intrusion of the Governments but then sit back and accepts it without protest.
I’m 76 and I’m not the future of Australia but boy when are Australians going to stand up and be counted before it’s too late.

[LoudPipes]

Originally Posted by cheap

People apparently want qualified university trained nurses treating them.

Has anyone done a cost benefits analysis of university trained nurses V's old school trained, or do Australians assume that qualifications, processes and controls regime will save us. I suspect the reason nurses need university skills is to minimise the risks to hospitals "untrained staff" potential for litigation and so on.

Cheap, you must know better than that, seriously it's a statement almost to silly to comment on.


Nursing requirements and skill levels have increased with medical knowledge and technology.

Old school trained nurses are simply old school.

Third world medical care is just what we need.

[superyob]

And now back to Ricky Muir...

[Davehoos]

Ricky comment
local media-hunter valley have given a pat on back, playing his speech in prime time. most locals that have seen it have given the thumbs up, I was entertained with bill end of year speech followed by the announcement of labor candidates headed to Canberra.

This has nothing to do with the Ricky thread.
But for those that don't involve themselves with long term policy over the last 45 years. Education is a SERVICE industry, like banking and garbage.

I see NO HIGH GROUND FOR EITHER ARGUMENT or the argument that education should compete for business. I work for local government and they are planning to compete as a service industry over the next 30yrs.

I suspect the reason nurses need university skills is to minimise the risks to hospitals "untrained staff" potential for litigation and so on.

It was decided to move the cost of training from state health budgets to fedral university budget and create a potential future for advancement in skills and wages of union based health workers and give gender equality to keep up with tradesman wages.

.