Cuts backs at Victorian universities, Labor’s CFMEU links and poor energy policy to hit economy

The state government mismanagement of Victoria has been a national joke for some years, particularly in Canberra.

A bad situation in our second-largest state by population now looks set to become much worse and will seriously impact the national economy. If it develops as expected, it will make the Reserve Bank’s task of guiding the economy extremely difficult because a major part of Australia will be different to the rest.

The first of the ‘killer blows’ to hit the state is industrial gas rationing which will be followed by much higher power prices, and is driven solely by Victorian government incompetence. But, the second – the smashing of its tertiary education industry which could turn the greater Melbourne CBD into a ghetto-like ‘no-go’ area – has being devised and will be implemented mainly by the Albanese government.

To its great credit the local press, including The Age and Herald Sun, have done a wonderful job exposing the links between organised crime, the CFMEU and the funding of the state ALP but have yet to alert the state of the two looming ‘killer blows’ and correctly allocating the blame.

The impact of the two blows will be made doubly serious by Victoria’s rampant and reckless borrowing, which has left the state in a situation where it is in desperate need of strong revenue.

The ‘killer blows’ could see many high taxpayers and enterprises leave the state, reducing the revenue base.

Victoria cannot afford to seriously shrink its natural gas-using industries or its extensive university structures. Yet, both are set to be crippled.

Victoria has up to 10,000 businesses which depend on gas, and they add almost $10bn to the local community, contributing more than $3bn in state revenue.

Most of those businesses face the high likelihood of periodic gas rationing next year because the burden of gas shortages will be borne by business (and their employees) and not consumers.

Alarmed by the alerts from the national energy regulators, the Victorian industry bodies asked 500 Victorian businesses which depend on gas for fuel what they would do if they were subject to gas rationing. One in five enterprises said they would go offshore or close permanently.

A big majority of the rest said they would slash their operations and their work force.

The state cannot afford the revenue reduction, which will be made worse by the unsustainable payroll and property taxes, which have been imposed to cover the existing revenue shortfalls.

On payroll tax, the government announced the tax-free threshold would be increased from $700,000 to $900,000. But, it did not highlight the fact the threshold would diminish once payrolls passed $3m.

So, for a business employing 50 staff with a payroll of around $4.8m the tax bill goes up by $30,000. It’s not sustainable.

The Australian government now knows Victoria not only has the immense gas reserves I have been highlighting for years, but there are additional onshore reserves just as big.

The government had plenty of warning gas supply cuts were inevitable, but energy and resources minister Lily D’Ambrosio has constantly blocked development of Victoria’s immense reserves and appears to rank the state’s financial and employment issues a distant second to other agendas.

Premier Jacinta Allan has been fully briefed on the looming energy crisis and its impact on the state, but is not strong enough to overshadow the immense ALP power of D’Ambrosio.

Treasurer Tim Pallas has been desperately trying to take advantage of the Japanese offer to process Victorian brown coal and export it in briquette form. But, the power of D’Ambrosio is again too great.

Victoria is now relying on onshore wind generation to reduce dependence on coal and gas for power generation.

But, as often happens, in recent times the wind has not been blowing, causing a massive increase in gas consumption for power generation.

So far this year, the state has used 67 per cent more gas than the energy regulator had forecast for the whole of 2024.

The reserves held for demand fluctuations are down to 10 days worth.

The ageing brown coal generators are being forced to produce flat-out, with Victoria’s emission rate now way beyond anything anyone forecast.

D’Ambrosio has responded with tenders to establish wind generators in the Bass Strait, which will be incredibly expensive and saddle the state with much higher power prices for a generation or two.

If the energy minister was given another portfolio and Victoria immediately started to work on its gas reserves, it would take two more years to get its gas to market.

Immense gas reserves are being developed in the Northern Territory and the pipelines are being adjusted and expanded to take the gas south, but, by the time the gas reaches Victoria it will be too late and naturally will be much more expensive.

It would seem the premier cannot politically take action to replace D’Ambrosio until the crisis has actually taken place.

When it comes to the education ‘killer blow’, big parts of the greater Melbourne CBD revolve around the University of Melbourne and RMIT.

Both are set to be forced by the Albanese government to slash their numbers of overseas students, which are essential to their current financial viability.

As I pointed out last month this will impact medical research, but the impact on the Melbourne CBD will be even greater because in addition to the top universities, the institutions providing lesser qualifications are also being slashed by the federal government.

Melbourne has one of Australia’s best student accommodation networks. It has been specifically designed for the sector and injects vibrancy into the CBD.

The forced tertiary education slashing will require substantial staff retrenchments and leave vast areas of student accommodation empty and/or replaced by social housing not necessarily compatible with student accommodation.

In many cities overseas when such a trauma has taken place ‘no-go’ areas develop which, if it comes to pass in the Melbourne CBD, could conceivably threaten the existence of both universities.

Combine this with the union-dominated Victorian government being prepared to accept much lower productivity via working from home freedom, the CBD of Melbourne is in danger of being greatly challenged as a safe venue for arts and dining.

Victorians have only themselves to blame for electing the now-retired Daniel Andrews as premier for a third term, but the potential destruction of Melbourne’s CBD partly rests on Anthony Albanese.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/cuts-backs-at-victorian-universities-labors-cfmeu-links-and-poor-energy-policy-to-hit-economy/news-story/4557759cf76a2e5227a87236e33ca0f0

*************************************************

Sacking Officeworks employee will achieve nothing

Sacking the Officeworks employee at the centre of last week's brouhaha would turn her into a poster child for the anti-Semitic left, writes Janet Albrechtsen:

If Officeworks sacked the young woman at the centre of last week’s storm for refusing to serve a Jewish man, that might satisfy some people – particularly the noisy ones on social media.

A dismissal could demonstrate a serious consequence for an egregiously offensive action.

But it will, most definitely, also turn her into a martyr, a poster child for the anti-Semitic left. So, let’s pause and think.

If anyone thinks sacking this employee will settle this issue, they haven’t been paying attention to what has been going on in schools and homes, universities and workplaces, and courtrooms too.

Caught on camera, the young woman’s language is a clue. The staff member, in her early 20s, can be heard telling the Jewish customer who wants to laminate a page of The Australian Jewish News featuring his trip to Israel, that she is pro-Palestinian and “I’m not comfortable doing that”. She says it’s company policy that she doesn’t have to do a job that makes her uncomfortable.

There is an opportunity here to consider something fundamental: how does a woman in her early 20s come to think that because she feels “uncomfortable” she has a right to refuse service to a Jew? Answering that question is much harder than issuing a dismissal notice.

Harder because blame extends well beyond this deluded young woman. It reaches into management ranks of Officeworks, into the boardroom of its owner, Wesfarmers – and into every company where workplace codes routinely use touchy-feely language that may lead an employee, especially a young one, to imagine that if something, or someone, makes them feel uncomfortable they can object.

Officeworks’ Print and Copy Terms and Conditions state that a customer must not provide material to an employee that “is unlawful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, invasive of privacy, vulgar, obscene, profane or which may harass or cause distress or inconvenience to, or incite hatred of, any person”.

Officeworks employs thousands of young people. How do they determine what is “threatening, abusive, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, profane”?

Why was this young woman empowered to decide what material might “harass, cause distress or inconvenience to, or incite hatred” to “any person”?

This is not to defend this young woman – refusing to serve this Jewish customer was abhorrent. But let’s not forget that Officeworks has a policy that this woman believes empowers her to act in this abhorrent manner.

It’s a big enough ask expecting young employees to fairly determine what is incitement to violence when courts have offered no clue because prosecutors are loath to use the existing provisions that ban such actions.

At the other end of the spectrum, what are inexperienced employees to make of the legal free-for-all when it comes to subjective feelings such as “causing distress or inconvenience”?

Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi is suing Pauline Hanson under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act claiming Hanson offended her. Faruqi has threatened action against this newspaper’s Johannes Leak, too, again claiming she was offended by a cartoon. Jewish groups are considering using 18C to prosecute words that they say offend and insult them.

Why are we outraged that a member of a generation raised in the shadow of the legal system that put a person’s feelings at the centre of laws to punish people for causing offence might think that their feelings trump all too?

We could have altered this offence trajectory. Instead, moves in 2017 to rein in the “offence and insult” part of section 18C went nowhere. Liberal MP Julian Leeser – who in recent days called for Officeworks’ chief executive to “hang his head in shame” – celebrated when feelings remained central to 18C. So did Jewish groups.

Politicians, poorly named human rights activists and Jewish groups still insist that we keep feelings at the centre of laws that can be used to punish people for causing offence. The young woman at the centre of the Officeworks brouhaha has simply moved the feelings bar a tad further down the line from actions that “offend” to those that make her “uncomfortable”. And why not, given that Officeworks policies do it too?

As a society, we can hardly pretend we didn’t see this coming. We have spent the past few decades turning a young generation into a fragile one. Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and lawyer Greg Lukianoff wrote about this 10 years ago. Their essay in The Atlantic, The Coddling of the American Mind, laid out what was happening on American campuses. It’s little different in Australia.

Haidt and Lukianoff wrote about the frailty of university students raised by over-protective parents, where the “flight to safety” happened at school too when playgrounds became risk-free. These “social-media natives” cocooned in silos might be different, the authors said, “in how they go about sharing their moral judgments and supporting one another in moral campaigns and conflicts”. They need only look around to see a legal system where being offended provides an entry into a courtroom to make someone pay for hurting their feelings.

In September 2015, Haidt and Lukianoff warned that “attempts to shield students from words, ideas and people that might cause them emotional discomfort are bad for students”. They warned that it would be bad for workplaces, too, when students stepped into the real world, inevitably confronting what they were shielded from on campus.

It would be bad for democracy, too, the authors predicted with laser-sharp accuracy. “When the ideas, values, and speech of the other side are seen not just as wrong but as wilfully aggressive toward innocent victims, it is hard to imagine the kind of mutual respect, negotiation, and compromise that are needed to make politics a positive-sum game.”

Ten years on, we can remove “campus”, “college” and “university”, and “students” from The Coddling of the American Mind thesis and insert “workplace” and “employees”. We have reaped as we have sown.

To turn this around, Haidt and Lukianoff said it was critical to “minimise distorted thinking” so that those who felt discomfort “see the world more accurately”.

Maybe, then, sacking this Officeworks staffer is too easy – and also misguided. Maybe visiting the Melbourne Holocaust Museum is a better way to challenge this young woman’s distorted thinking. Her scheduled visit there (agreed after an earlier complaint) took place after the one caught on camera. If learning some history, gaining an insight into a deeply complex problem made her feel uncomfortable, all the better.

It’s certainly preferable to turning her into an unemployed martyr for the left.

This doesn’t get Officeworks or Wesfarmers off the hook. They need a new set of terms and conditions to make clear that just because something might cause distress – or discomfort, as this woman called it – that is no reason to refuse service.

Parents, politicians and universities have some important work to do, too. Complicit in raising a coddled generation, a good place to start is reminding kids, students, and adults that, as Haidt and Lukianoff wrote, “subjective feelings are not always a trustworthy guide; unrestrained, they can cause people to lash out at others who have done nothing wrong”.

Oh, and we should repeal section 18C.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/sacking-officeworks-employee-will-achieve-nothing/news-story/01e5f9e7fb78a26022dcc1a412119317

************************************************

Outdoor education teaches valuable life skills, but enrolments are declining due to academic pressure

Long, manicured nails are hastily clipped as sweaty palms clutch onto climbing ropes draped over sandstone, the students' lifeline on the cliff face.

Dangling in mid-air, their tears, screams and the odd expletive are eventually replaced by cheers, giggles and hugs.

These teenagers are climbing up and abseiling down a mountain for their outdoor education subject.

But despite the subject's benefits, students wanting to participate in it face increasing barriers.

These girls from Clonard College in Geelong have travelled nearly four hours to climb Mount Arapiles, a famed mountain in western Victoria that for decades has drawn rock climbers from around the world.

"I had a panic attack, but it wasn't that bad, my instructor was really good," year 11 student Kenzie Pinkerton says.

The day begins with a dozen girls sitting on wooden benches braiding each other's hair; their backpacks, shoes, helmets, and harnesses are tossed in the centre.

Scaling 100-metre cliffs is unlike anything the girls have ever done before. It is the practical component for their Victoria Certificate of Education (VCE) outdoor education, a non-compulsory subject that suits students who learn by "doing", by allowing them to plan and participate in outdoor activities.

"The thing outdoor education gives you, that other subjects don't, is life skills," says Shelby Hackett, the girls' outdoor education teacher.

"Life isn't just books and computers. Life is in the real world, where you've got to communicate with people, you've got to adapt and be flexible."

Ms Hackett believes the skills and experiences learnt in outdoor education better prepare young people for life after study, but students who want to participate are finding it harder because of increasing academic workloads.

Life outside books and computers

Ms Hackett explains that the girls learn to cook, set up camp, cooperate with others, manage their time, and negotiate study and work commitments.

"Communicating with [their] teachers to catch up on work — they're all important life skills that will most likely make them more successful at university, than if they just do straight study in a classroom," she says.

The girls also build confidence, independence, and resilience.

"In the middle of the cliff I was about to give up, but I pushed through it," says Alisha Rowe, a year 10 student. "I had to be responsible for the next person who came after me. Now, sitting at the top, I'm really proud of myself," says Bailee Bonanno in year 10.

"A big factor for them is getting them to be OK with being a little dirty … sometimes the toilets don't flush, and we don't have a shower, don't have a mirror," Ms Hackett says.

"Some of the things are uncomfortable, but part of the learning is being uncomfortable."

Year 11 student Katelyn Irvine says Ms Hackett showed her she could enjoy life outside without the need to be plugged in all the time.

"I wouldn't expect [to] have learned anything without my phone because it's got a whole bunch of information in it," she says.

"But being outside and seeing it all is just like, woah."

Growing academic pressure

Despite the benefits of outdoor education, Ms Hackett says students are finding it harder to attend camp while keeping up with the academic workload.

She says enrolment numbers are falling as students feel pressured to drop the subject in favour of more academic ones, like maths and English, the closer they get to year 12 exams.

Ms Hackett says one VCE cohort began with 20 students but dropped to seven by the end of the course.

And of the 77 outdoor education students she had last year, only 14 chose to continue with it as a VCE subject this year.

It's not yet clear how many of those 14 students will continue it next year.

She says many students fear missing class and school assessments that can only be done within strict time frames.

Another deterrent is that the subject attracts a penalty in the overall ATAR scores, which determine university entry.

Ms Hackett says outdoor education scores are scaled down, so a raw score of 35 for example, would only count as 28 towards their final ATAR.

"They look at the drop in the ATAR and they go, 'It's not worth my time'.

"But I think the life skills they get out of it and the challenges they overcome are worth more than the ATAR score they get at the end."

Between 2018 and 2022, data from the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority showed a decline in outdoor education enrolments the closer students got to finishing year 12.

Student enrolments fell as they progressed through each semester with the largest drop between unit 2 and unit 3, which traditionally coincided with students finishing year 11 and moving into year 12.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/outdoor-education-teaches-valuable-life-skills-but-enrolments-are-declining-due-to-academic-pressure/ar-AA1gNbIS

*********************************************

Raising the Criminal Age Only Sweeps Youth Crime Under the Carpet

The Victorian state government has committed to raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 10 years old to 12, and to 14 years old by 2027 in an effort, it says, to avoid young people entering the criminal justice system early.

Yet, the recent case of a 14-year-old, who is on bail and had more than 380 charges, struck out because of his age.

He has been described by a magistrate as “causing terror” in the community, which sums up all that is wrong with plans to raise the age of criminal responsibility.

Not holding young offenders accountable for their actions will not halt the issue of youth crime.

If anything, it will likely reinforce the sense of impunity many young offenders already feel, and will do nothing to stem the number of home invasions, thefts, assaults, and robberies that have skyrocketed post-pandemic.

The Victorian Crime Statistics Agency reveals the number of alleged offences committed by young people aged 10 to 14 has increased 37 percent over the last five years. In 2024, there were over 6,800 alleged offences committed by this age group.

However, according to data released by the Productivity Commission, only 15 young people aged 10 to 13 were incarcerated over the 2022-23 financial year.

These figures show what happens when you do not punish or seek to rehabilitate young offenders. Little wonder many youths gleefully plaster their crimes across social media, underscoring their contempt for the law.

The government’s justification for raising the criminal age limit is that children belong in schools rather than the criminal justice system, this is unlikely to alter their mindset.

Not only would this teach young offenders that they can evade the consequences of their behaviour, but it also provides a dangerous opportunity for older offenders to recruit younger people to commit crimes on their behalf, safe in the knowledge that these children will not be prosecuted.

Lack of Options for Judges

Further, the debate around the age of criminal responsibility is driven by the assumption that entanglement with the criminal justice system inevitably means jail time for children.
This reveals a key problem with existing arrangements—namely the lack of deterrents available to judges when sentencing young people.

It is widely recognised that detention can be harmful for young offenders and should be avoided where possible.

Instead, many offenders, particularly non-violent offenders, are handed light non-custodial sentences that fail to address the factors behind their behaviour.

There must be punishments available to judges that are appropriate for those offenders not serious enough to be incarcerated, but whose conduct—and the decision-making behind it—requires intervention.

There’s a Model to Copy

Sentencing reform should begin with adopting practices successfully implemented in the United States. Rancho Cielo in California has established a successful program for non-violent offenders on probation and at-risk youth, with a focus on rehabilitation and providing skills for life.

Youth offenders are sent to the ranch as students, where they receive a high school education while also being enrolled in workshops that teach practical and employable skills.

The ranch operates at just a quarter of the cost of local prisons and has reduced youth reoffending rates from 40 percent to 15 percent over two decades.

Such programs not only take the offender away from social groups encouraging offending, but also stop youth offenders heading down the wrong path.

The most dangerous offender is one with nothing to lose. Giving young offenders hope and opportunity to build a career gives them something to lose.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/raising-the-criminal-age-only-sweeps-youth-crime-under-the-carpet-5681794

****************************************