Tim Wilson appointment to head Human Rights Commission stirs controversy

The Abbott government has sent shockwaves through the anti-discrimination and political establishments by appointing one of the nation's most vociferous critics of the Human Rights Commission as its new chief.

Tim Wilson, for the past seven years a policy director of the Institute of Public Affairs, a free-market think tank that early this year called for the abolition of the Human Rights Commission, will be informally known as the "Freedom Commissioner".

Mr Wilson, who resigned from both the IPA and the Liberal Party soon after the announcement, told Fairfax Media he was determined to "refocus" the commission on defending free speech rather than concentrating on anti-discrimination work.

Attorney-General George Brandis made it clear Mr Wilson's $325,000-a-year appointment was made on both political and ideological grounds.

"The appointment of Mr Wilson to this important position will help restore balance to the Australian Human Rights Commission which, during the period of the Labor government, has become increasingly narrow and selective in its view of human rights," he said.

On Wednesday, Senator Brandis said that he knew Mr Wilson was a very strong advocate of traditional, liberal rights, such as the freedom of expression and freedom of the press. 

"I think he is the person with the policy background and the intellectual grunt of the public reputation to be just the person to be the Freedom Commissioner," Senator Brandis told ABC Radio.

The Attorney-General also argued that there was no contradiction between Mr Wilson's appointment and his previously expressed belief that the Human Rights Commission should be abolished. 

"People can have a view about whether or not a particular agency or organ of government should exist or not  but hat doesn't foreclose them for serving that agency or organ of government while its exists," he said.

When asked if he - like Mr Wilson - believed that Section 18 c should be abolished, Senator Brandis replied: "That's something I'm looking at at the moment".

Shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus described Mr Wilson's appointment as "dubious".

"How can Mr Wilson possibly undertake the role of a Human Rights Commissioner when it's obvious he has such contempt for the commission itself?" Mr Dreyfus said.

"By appointing Mr Wilson, Senator Brandis has sent a strong signal about exactly the kind of blatant political agenda he wishes to pursue as Attorney-General."

Greens legal affairs spokeswoman Penny Wright described Mr Wilson's views as "extreme".

"The Attorney-General has already made it clear he thinks some human rights are more important than others, including that free speech ought to trump anti-discrimination laws," she said.

Mr Wilson, who described himself as a "an economic and social liberal and a cultural and institutional conservative" conceded that "no doubt some people will find my appointment challenging". However, he did not expect any of his fellow commissioners to resign.

Commission president Gillian Triggs, who has been acting as Human Rights Commissioner since August last year, offered cautious support.

She said although Mr Wilson had been critical of the commission, it was implicit in his acceptance of the position that he recognised the commission undertook worthwhile work.

On Wednesday, Ms Triggs said she expected Mr Wilson to bring "some fresh air" to the organisation.

But he had to understand he had to work with other commissioners in his new role, Professor Triggs said.

"This is not the place for party-political rhetoric," she told ABC radio, adding the commission needed to be independent of government.

Professor Triggs said the commission could see some value in amending Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

"Of course it’s possible to tweak it to amend it to take bad language out, put new language in that strengthens it," she said.

Early this year, in a heated debate on ABC-TV with Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick, Mr Wilson condemned the commission as a "silent observer" which had displayed a "massive absence of knowledge and judgment on freedom of speech" when the Gillard government tried to impose new regulations on the media.

Mr Wilson made clear on Monday he supported repealing the section of the Racial Discrimination Act that made it illegal to insult or offend people on the basis of their race.

Conservative News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt was found to have breached in 2011 section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act after he wrote two articles implying some light-skinned people who identified as indigenous Australians were doing so for personal gain.

Prominent members of the Abbott Coalition, particularly Senator Brandis, have been fiercely critical of the ruling and have moved to modify the section of the Racial Discrimination Act that landed Mr Bolt in trouble.

SOURCE





Joe Hockey swings the axe

A rapidly deteriorating budget has forced the Abbott government to order massive spending cuts, with the National Disability Insurance Scheme now in the crosshairs.

A range of programs in welfare, health, education and Aboriginal services face immediate cuts and billions more dollars are expected to be ripped out of Commonwealth expenditure in what Treasurer Joe Hockey is signalling will be a horror budget in May.

But the government will proceed with ditching the carbon price, even though it will cost $7.4 billion in revenue forgone, and with scrapping the profitable Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which will return $439 million in revenue over the next three years.

The first round of spending cuts are contained in the mid-year economic and fiscal outlook released on Tuesday.

These are expected to include changes to the bipartisan National Disability Insurance Scheme in a bid to curb federal deficits reaching a combined $123 billion over the next four years.

The government is in negotiations with the states over the NDIS and Finance Minister Matthias Cormann said the discussions were about "how the efficiencies and cost effectiveness of this very important commitment can be maximised".

While there is bipartisan support for the NDIS, the program is forecast to cost $22 billion in its first full year of operation, scheduled for 2019-20. The Coalition will examine how to rein in that cost by making it tightly targeted and run with a minimum of bureaucracy.

Education cuts of more than $1.5 billion include dumping the trades training centre program and slashing before- and after-school care by $450 million.

Indigenous Legal Aid faces a cut of $43 million.

There are also cuts of $10 million from the Children's Medical Research Institute; $12 million from the Millennium Institute, one of the largest medical research institutes in Australia working on cancer and leukaemia research; and $15.1 million from the cancer care co-ordinators program.

Health services have been cut by $150 million, including Westmead Hospital, which will lose $100 million over three years. But the budget outlook measures are just the beginning.

Warning that Australia's living standards are at risk if action is not taken, Mr Hockey said government spending growth under Labor had climbed to 3.5 per cent - well above the promised cap of 2 per cent in real terms once the economy was growing at trend.

The Treasurer outlined a bleak economic outlook, revealing an additional revenue shortfall of $16.8 billion for the year contributing to a deficit in June 2014 expected to reach $47 billion.

The Treasury forecasts also reveal escalating debt which, if left on its present path, would bring gross debt to $667 billion by 2023-24 - or about 26 per cent of gross domestic product.

Over the four-year budget period, gross debt is expected to hit $460 billion in 2016-17, the reason behind Mr Hockey's desperation to have the debt ceiling lifted to $500 billion before he reached agreement with the Greens to abolish the upper limit.

SOURCE





How Treasurer Joe Hockey can reduce Australia's $667 billion debt

Terry McCrann

EVERYTHING but raising the GST is on the table as the Coalition aims to tame its $667 billion debt bomb.

As Treasurer Joe Hockey launched a scathing attack on the previous Labor government for leaving a budget mess, a rollcall of potential and actual spending cuts emerged.

Mr Hockey unveiled the Midyear Economic and Fiscal Outlook in Canberra which showed that if left unchecked Labor's spending and policies would have resulted in a debt bomb of $667 billion in 2022-23.

He said it would not be politically easy but that hard decisions would need to be made in coming months about what programs and government spending needed to be reined in.

"All options are on the table," Mr Hockey said while ruling out changes to the GST.

"No government has ever achieved prosperity by simply raising taxes," he said.

Among the speculated cuts on the government's hit list include a paring back of Labor's National Disability Insurance Scheme.

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann yesterday said the government was looking to make the scheme more efficient, flagging future potential cuts.

"We want to make it more efficient," Senator Cormann said. "We are having discussions about that."

His comments follow those of Tony Abbott who said following a meeting of COAG last week that the spending on the NDIS could he modified.

"We are all absolutely committed to the implementation of the NDIS … but we have got to implement it in a way which is fair and a way which is sustainable," Mr Abbott said.

The latest fiscal update shows budget deficits of more than $120 billion over the next four years.

The Coalition's flagship $5.5 billion-a-year paid parental leave scheme could also never see the light of day with the program stated as "not been finalised" in yesterday's MYEFO.

The scheme, which pays parents six months at their full salary, was one of Mr Abbott's signature policies going into the election campaign. However it has come under fierce criticism for being too generous.

"The PPL is something that needs to be looked at to help find savings," Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief Peter Anderson said.

The axe fell on several programs yesterday with education and environmental schemes some of the biggest losers.

A total of $998 million from Labor's Trade Training Centres and $450 million from after school care assistance was slashed.

A community infrastructure program worth $528 million was also cut to help pay for an extra $1.2 billion for schools funding announced by Christopher Pyne earlier this month.

"This is a lose, lose situation for school communities across Australia," Australian Education Union president Angelo Gavrielatos said.

"Vital national funding for trade training and before and after school care is being taken away so money can be given to the WA, NT and QLD governments that they don't even have to spend in education."

A total of $4.3 billion in savings was flagged yesterday through the abolishment of businesses and energy market compensation programs which were given to medium and large businesses impacted by the carbon tax.

In health, $265 million in hospital revamps was shelved. This included $100 million for the redevelopment of the Westmead Hospital in Sydney, $49 million for palliative care in Tasmania, $22 million for upgrades to St George Hospital in Sydney and $10m for the redevelopment of the Children's Medical Research Institute.

A total of $111.4 million in cuts were been made to the Humanitarian Programme, providing health support to refugees and other humanitarian entrants and $43.1 million is set to be redirected from the Legal Policy Reform and Advocacy funding, mostly benefiting indigenous Australians.

SOURCE





Is university worth it?

Are university degrees overpriced? How many students considered this question when choosing what and where to study in 2014, or the potential return on a six-figure investment?

Three years of a university undergraduate degree and lost wages during that time (assuming full-time work was available) would easily crack $100,000 for even general degrees. Wages aside, many students leave university with tens of thousands of dollars in loans that take years to repay.

Is the debt worth it? The standard answer – university graduates achieve higher employment and wage outcomes than non-graduates – is true of many students. But will that trend be as strong as the labour market is transformed and university graduates are less in demand?

Some universities are pushing for 10 per cent fee increases – at a time of rising graduate oversupply – such are their growing costs and funding pressures.

How many university graduates does Australian business need each year? A lot fewer than are being pumped through the system. Even professions such as law and veterinary science have recently warned of a graduate oversupply.

Yes, university degrees are highly valuable for the right students. As a part-time uni lecturer, I see students who develop terrific critical-thinking skills that will last a lifetime and repay the cost of their degree many times over. Also, some degrees are exceptional value considering the work that goes into each student and the resources available.

But I am concerned for the bottom half of students, many of whom should not be at university – at least straight after school – and who will leave with an average degree and a $40,000 debt, only to work in a succession of low-paid part-time jobs as they struggle to find professional employment.

Too many students go to university when they are not ready – or not at university level, academically and emotionally. Some young men, in particular, seem to have little or no interest in higher learning – only scraping a pass – even though they incur huge debt to laze about.

You could blame universities for this: lower entry requirements and softer marking in some courses compared with previous generations may have devalued bachelor degrees. If more people can do the course and fewer fail, is it still worth as much? And have universities, generally, sacrificed student quality in the quest for quantity?

However, the real problem is society attitudes: we still expect young people to spend years at university and pay huge course fees to prove they are smart and diligent enough to be employed in a graduate position. It’s dumb and outdated.

We railroad young people towards university straight after school, when many would be better off finding lower-paid work and studying part-time, or deferring full-time study until they are more mature, experienced and better able to fund their degree.

I’m worried about the outlook for graduate employment in Australia. One in eight employers recruited no graduates in 2012, down from one-in-10 a year earlier, Graduate Careers Australia reported in February. I expect that proportion to fall further in the next few years.  My guess is there will be more stories about a rapidly deteriorating graduate recruitment market in the first half of 2014 or 2015.

I hear about employers deferring or reducing the size of their graduate recruitment program, given rising economic uncertainty and less incentive to invest. It’s an easy cost to cut when business is slow, even though it can have long-term repercussions when trade improves.

Perhaps less graduate employment is a cyclical consequence of a sluggish economy. I suspect it is as much a permanent, structural change as business recognises that:

* It can automate more graduate jobs or outsource them overseas.
* A worldwide shift towards micro-jobs and freelancing provides a much larger, more flexible workforce and less need to hire as many university graduates.
* The cost of hiring and training university graduates, some of whom may only work for the firm for a year or two, outweighs the benefits.
* Some university courses are not producing enough graduates of sufficient quality who can create short-term value for their employers, and are highly innovative and adaptive.
* Recruiting a large pool of graduates and developing the next generation of managers is no longer as pressing issue for as many companies.
* An increasing oversupply of graduates gives companies more recruitment options.
* A growing recognition that the rapid pace of change in global business means skills need to evolve faster than ever. Three years in a classroom might be less effective as a learning technique.
* Wages and on-costs for graduates in some industries are too high.

I wish more companies would take back part of the training function – greater on-the-job learning through internships and cadetships – and less reliance on full-time university study, at least at the undergraduate level.

More part-time study on top of full-time work; less full-time study. Earn and learn at the same time – not one or the other for three years when many students are still unsure about their favoured profession.

Working full-time and studying part-time for four or five years takes incredible commitment: I’d hire such a student any day over one who only studied full-time.

Even better would be a recognition that many young people are better off going to university in their mid to late twenties, after a few years in the workforce, and when they are ready to learn and have some real-life experience to back it up.

SOURCE