Joe Hockey’s New Mantra: Earn or Learn

Joe Hockey was ‘grilled’ on the ABC TV program Q & A last night, much to the glee of the audience members who lined up to take shots at Mr Hockey over last week’s budget. The clip above shows a young Tasmanian asking where young people are supposed to find jobs when the numbers of unemployed Tasmanians are so much higher than the available job vacancies. Mr Hockey refuses to answer the question, instead repeating the words, ‘if you’re under 30, we need you to earn or learn.’

Well, Mr Hockey, I’m 23 and I am both earning and learning, and I still can’t afford a $7 co-payment every time I go to the GP. Many Tasmanians, and in fact people all across the country, are engaging in higher education or looking tirelessly for work. Many people who have already completed the ‘learning’ part of their apparent obligation to the government are now struggling to find meaningful employment. In five years time, young people with professional qualifications will likely still have the same difficulties finding a job, except that they will also have three times the student debt that today’s graduates are saddled with.

Jobs do not magically appear out of the air just because people wish it. The government does not directly create jobs – although, counter to Mr Hockey’s assertion, the government (at all levels) does in fact employ many people – but it helps to shape the economic climate of the nation. The government’s own budget papers predict that rates of unemployment will actually increase over the next 12 to 18 months, before stabilising.

While we’re at it, it remains unclear to me why the government feels the need to establish young people as a separate class of persons, somehow less deserving of the government’s assistance. The six-month waiting period (and subsequent on/off eligibility) on Newstart and the ‘tightening’ of eligibility of the Disability Support Pension apply exclusively to under-30s and under-35s respectively. Joe Hockey himself makes it very explicit: ‘if you are under 30, we need you to earn or learn.’ Why is it so much more important that today’s young people are economically productive members of society? Why does this draconian requirement not apply to other generations? As a number of people (I think principally Greg Jericho) have pointed out, the proportion of unemployed young people is actually smaller when compared with unemployment in the general population. Yes, there are a small number of young people who do not wish to study or work. These people are a drain on the economy and it’s a problem that needs to be addressed. However, most young people who are not (or soon will not be) in study or work are victims of circumstance. The jobs market, particularly for young people (who generally lack required experience), is in pretty bad shape right now, although there are geographic variances. Compounding the problem is the government’s proposed changes to HECS and student fees, which will discourage young people, particularly those from lower socio-economic backgrounds, from going to university. This is particularly the case when those young people believe that a university degree – that takes three or four years out of their life and can cost up to $100,000 – will make their chances of securing a decent job only marginally higher.

Forcing young people into poverty and desperation when they are supposed to be in the prime of their lives is morally reprehensible. If it truly is necessary to change how Newstart is paid to young people – an assertion I would dispute, but let’s assume for a moment – why not do it another way? How about paying unemployed under-30s Newstart unconditionally for the first six months of their unemployment. This would allow them to concentrate their full energy on finding a job, without having to worry about whether they’ll be able to afford food that week or whether they might get evicted from their rental property. People are much more likely to get a job when they’re showing up to interviews well-rested, well-fed, well-dressed and on time. These things are only possible, however, when you’ve got a regular income to rely on. If people haven’t found a job after six months, then by all means, restrict or reduce their payment. I still don’t think it will have been their fault that they haven’t found paid employment, but if the government is so desperate to reduce welfare spending, this is a much fairer way to do it. It would also mean encouraging young people to get jobs instead of punishing them for a situation over which they have no control. Although, put in context, perhaps the government is deliberately trying to be punitive.

In short: Mr Hockey, answer the damn question. Tell us where to find these magical jobs, because there are a lot of people out there who’d really appreciate the heads up.

Advertisements

Trying to make sense of privilege and poverty

Recently a friend of mine went on a bit of a diatribe on Facebook about just how good we have it, here in Australia. This particular friend is currently in India; I’m not sure exactly what it is he is doing there but it may have something to do with teaching impoverished children how to read and write. It was sparked by a post he’d seen, directed at Prime Minister Gillard, where a young man complained that he was ineligible for Youth Allowance while studying at University, while “a person that lives their life on drugs and that has no intention of getting a job” is eligible for government assistance. My friend was absolutely scathing about Australians who complain about the ‘difficulties’ of life here or the exorbitant cost of living.

I want to defend those people. No, I don’t think it’s right to complain incessantly about what are, rather crudely, elsewhere called ‘first world problems’. I certainly do think that a large number of people need to pause, look around, and try to appreciate just how good they have it – not just compared with many other people in this world, but in and of itself. But these things aren’t simply caused by wilful ignorance and stupidity: they are actively encouraged by the society in which we live.

There are two kinds of poverty: absolute poverty (also known as extreme poverty), and relative poverty. Absolute poverty is a standard set by the World Bank; it approximately means that you live on a total of less than US$1.50 per day. Relative poverty is like, not being able to afford a computer while everyone else in your neighbourhood has a high-speed internet connection. In Australia, the poverty line has been set at 50% of the average median income.

When you’re more likely to compare yourself to Gina Rinehart than an anonymous Chinese sweat-shop worker, I can understand why you might feel like you’re being ripped off. If Ms Rinehart can become the richest person in the country by inheriting a financial empire – and then have the audacity to claim that ordinary Australians should be willing to work for poverty wages – why can’t I afford to buy a brand new car? The media have a vested interest in keeping us discontented. That is how advertising works: make people feel like they don’t have enough. To get people to buy things, you must keep them believing that they deserve a certain standard of living, and then get them to work towards that standard of living. Next step: profit! Not to mention the fact that the federal opposition continue to tell us about how difficult life is under the carbon tax and skyrocketing cost-of-living pressures. Never mind the fact that the cost of many of the essentials of life has either remained stable or actually decreased over the past decade (compared with the average wage): if the Opposition can convince us all that there is a widespread problem, then maybe they can win the next election by convincing us that they have a solution to that problem.

Yes, it is absolutely, shockingly ignorant to think that middle-class Australians are somehow having a hard time of it. But when our daily lives consist of news stories about super-wealthy people like Gina Rinehart and Rupert Murdoch, when politicians tell us that we’re having trouble heating our houses through (incredibly mild) winters, or even when we feel a bit jealous over our next-door-neighbours brand new Ford SUV, it can be hard to put this back in perspective. Most of us do not travel to developing countries or view news stories about wars, famines, and natural disasters that afflict the global poor. The problem is that telling people that they’re oh-so-privileged to live the life they lead just isn’t profitable.

There’s an argument that providing welfare breeds a culture of entitlement. I think it’s a valid argument to make, but I also think that even if it is true, providing some kind of welfare is worth it. The problem comes when middle-class recipients of welfare masquerading as tax breaks start to believe that they are more entitled to their Family Tax Benefit than the long-term unemployed are to the money that literally allows them to eat and keep a roof over their head. Claiming that you are entitled to government benefits by virtue of being a university student while simultaneously denying the right of impoverished Australians to try to build a better life makes my head spin. These kind of people seem blissfully unaware of the fact that if you are born into disadvantage, it can be very difficult to find a decent, permanent job or obtain appropriate long-term housing. It’s much easier to advocate for the doctrine of ‘personal responsibility’ when your parents have coddled you all the way to university.

Yes, we live in an incredibly privileged society and yes, we need to stop sometimes and look around and understand how good we have it. But none of us lives in a vacuum; the way that we interact with society influences the way we make sense of our lives and of the world around us. Having a go at someone for acting entitled is valid, but there are larger things to blame than just their own sheltered ignorance.

Why I’m beginning to regret choosing UTas

With every day that goes by, UTas shows itself as an even more cynical and disillusioned institution. It seems utterly intent upon disenfranchising students and depriving them of the opportunity to obtain a good quality education.

Just today, we have had an announcement that nominations are open for the Student Representative Council, which included the information that elections are to be held from the 6th to the 8th of November. This is right in the middle of the exam period, a time when students are pulling all-nighters and skipping meals in order to ensure that the past thirteen weeks of their lives have not entirely gone to waste. A major problem in past SRC elections has been dismal voter turnout, a state of affairs which many of the candidates for the State Council positions (elected some weeks ago) actively campaigned to change. In addition to the (frankly outrageous) timing of the actual voting period, we have had the announcement that “all face to face campaigning is strictly prohibited from Monday 22 October, 2012, onwards.” This is, allegedly, an attempt to prevent students from being distracted from their exams.

UTas is actively trying to stop the people who will soon be our elected representatives from engaging with us. How can they hear our concerns if they are not allowed to speak to us? How are we to make an informed choice about the kind of people we want to have advocating for our interests if we are not allowed to hear them speak? And how on earth are we meant to understand their policy platforms when they are restricted to advertising their candidacy with posters no larger than A3 size, posted only on TUU noticeboards, after receiving the TUU stamp of approval?

The fact that SRC elections are a farce is only one element of UTas’ gross contempt towards students. Starting in 2013, the Faculty of Arts is undergoing a major restructure, allegedly designed to increase ‘efficiency’. This includes reducing the previous ten schools of discrete disciplines down to three schools, in which the old disciplines will be subsumed (without entirely losing their identities, of course). While there are obvious problems with amalgamating schools and depriving them of their individual identities, it was not immediately apparent how this would impact upon the teaching of the various disciplines, and I thought it might be justified if it really would reduce bureaucracy and administration costs.

However, it has now emerged that in addition to being stripped of their autonomy and identity, each of the original ten schools will be permitted to run only 14 different units of study in a given year. This is down from as many as 45 units per year in some schools. Education is not a one-size-fits-all arrangement. Students must be allowed to follow their passions, to explore new areas, to diversify their learning, and to specialise into particular fields. This restriction of units on offer deprives students of the choice we all deserve at this level of education, not to mention the fact that it significantly reduces the amount of work available for teaching staff. UTas has said time and again that it is trying to make itself more attractive to students in order to attract more people to study here. If that is the case then why are they actually reducing the number of opportunities that they provide to study and learn?

Currently before the Tasmanian Legislative Council is legislation which would reduce the number of student representatives on the University Council from two to one. The University is literally seeking to reduce the amount of input students are able to have into the way that their education is structured and run. I don’t know as much about it as I would like, but I know that UTas is also treating its academic staff with contempt. If we invest in our teachers and researchers, UTas could be a world-class university. Instead, staff are kept in the dark, with the threat of redundancy looming large, while their schools and faculties are restructured and downsized around them. A University is a place of learning, not a place to make money.

UTas is trying to silence the student voice, alienate us from one another, and reduce the quality of our education. There have been plenty of token gestures which purport to be listening to the student voice. Actions speak louder than internet surveys. Educational institutions should not be run like businesses. Have some respect for the intelligence and integrity of your students and your staff. We will not stand to be treated like this for much longer.

Information about the SRC elections can be accessed here.
Some information about the Arts Faculty restructure can be found here.

Blow whistle on harassment – Hobart Mercury

More intelligent, more accomplished women – and probably men – have been saying this stuff for decades. But Bec Fitzgibbon gets it published in a small-town newspaper and suddenly everyone is all ears?

It’s no wonder that I get my news from Tumblr rather than my local rag.

That said: yes, it’s an important message and a good article. But it shouldn’t take something like this to make people realise that this is how life works.

She’s not perfect, but I’m still proud of our Prime Minister

After her incredible Question Time speech in Parliament on October 9th – the news and YouTube video of which have apparently gone viral – Prime Minister Gillard is receiving, well, even more attention than usual. Many people, men and women alike, are praising the Prime Minister’s courage, as well as her oratory skills, in calling out Tony Abbott and others on ridiculous statements they have made in the past.

It’s true that those whose watched the entirety of the day unfold, and not just the Prime Minister’s speech, have a somewhat different (and more cynical) view of the whole affair. But nothing even comes close to the bile that Peter Hartcher today expressed in his column in the Sydney Morning Herald. I beg you, please read the whole article, but just in case you’re lazy (like me) I’m going to extract a few key quotes.

“If there was one thing that should have been different about Gillard’s prime ministership, it should have been that Australia’s first female prime minister should have been a flag bearer for women.”

In the next paragraph he goes on to say: “She started on her long trajectory of electoral disillusionment when, bit by bit, she revealed herself to be just another politician.”

And then: “If Gillard will not defend respect for women, what will she defend? Just another politician indeed.”

I have three points to make here.
1. Hartcher seems to be implying that Julia Gillard should have been a certain kind – a different kind – of prime minister simply by virtue of her gender. I would argue that every politician is ‘just another politician’. Prime Minister Gillard doesn’t have an obligation to act any certain way simply because she is a woman. Yes, it is inspiring to know that we as a country and a society have advanced enough that we can elect  a woman to our highest office. But Julia Gillard is a human being just like any other, and she is constrained by the workings of her party and the wider political arena just like any other prime minister would be. Much like those who label women ‘shrill’, ‘hysterical’ and ‘aggressive’ when they act just like men, Hartcher seems to be implying that by virtue of her gender Ms Gillard ought to somehow be better, more principled, less jaded than the men who have preceded her. I was alive for less than two months of Margaret Thatcher’s time as Prime Minister of Britain, but I’m sure if anyone told her she should have ruled the country differently because she was a woman she would have had a cow.

2. Julia Gillard is a flag-bearer for women. Did you somehow miss her entire speech? Fifteen solid minutes of calling out the sexist, misogynist pigs that Ms Gillard and every other woman in the country has to deal with on a daily basis. Trying to tell me that my prime minister is somehow not sticking up for my rights the day after this speech really just makes me think you’re an imbecile.

3. Ms Gillard wasn’t defending Peter Slipper. In fact, she quite explicitly called out Tony Abbott for his continuing close friendship with Mr Slipper, which all went down the drain – probably for political point-scoring – when this whole text messaging scandal emerged. The Prime Minister, in no uncertain terms, condemned Mr Slipper’s actions in sending those text messages.

I’ll leave you with this delighful snapshot of another wonderful human being – a commenter on Hartcher’s article – who seems to think that femaleness is a reason to be a whole different kind of Prime Minister.

The only other thing I have to say right now is go and read this article because it is utterly fantastic, more comprehensive and eloquent than anything I could ever manage.

  • Things about me:

    My name is Mel, I'm a final year law student from Australia. I'm interested in politics, feminism, sociology and science, among other things. You can find my Twitter account below; I am more active there than here.

    Feel free to share my posts anywhere you like, provided appropriate attribution and link-backs are given. Respectful comments always welcome. I like discussion.

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • When I tweet…

    Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.