Of Gatekeeping and Other Things

Given that I've been working in the field of education of students with disabilities since 1971, I've put a fair bit of blood, sweat and tears into the activity.

The irony for me is that I fell into the field almost accidentally on return from Vietnam. In the space of a few months I went from involvement in an activity that was completely futile to something that had a positive result for me and those I was working with.

On the upside, I've found it immensely fulfilling and perhaps along the way my humble contribution has made a positive difference to the lives of many of these kids. The fact that I'm still doing the work and still enjoying most of it is testimony to the fact that on the whole, opportunities are improving for this vulnerable cohort of the population, but there is still a long way to go.

On the downside, families with children with disabilities still have a convoluted and difficult road to follow to gain access for their kids to the same privileges and opportunities taken for granted for the parents of kids who aren't diagnosed with a disability.

In forty plus years I've seen the opening up of schooling to all children, irrespective of disability. In 1971 there were still kids considered "ineducable" who were relegated to training centres. I've seen the move towards training of most teachers in support for kids with special needs. I was one of the first teachers to be taken off stream for a year's training in this in 1976. I've seen the opening up of regular classrooms to students with disabilities, and was one of the first Advisory visiting Teachers appointed in 1974.

Having seen all this positive activity, there are still many barriers presented to these kids and their families. As recently as 2004, as a special school principal in Toowoomba, a city replete in what are euphemistically called  "private" schools, I would attend meetings of principals from both the private and public sectors.

It was always interesting to ask the private school principals if they had enrolments of students with disabilities. The stock answer was always "No" usually with the clarification "We don't cater for them".

It always got interesting when my next question was "Why not?". I never got a straight answer, and that was usually the end of the conversation.

That particular barrier (the enrolment exclusion) still exists, as has been highlighted by the report of the Senate Committee -

Access to real learning: the impact of policy, funding and culture on students with disability.

This particular barrier is highlighted in the report -

1.14 The practice known as 'gatekeeping', whereby families of students with disability are informally and unofficially discouraged from enrolling their child at their school of choice is another major barrier. For many families, merely enrolling their child in a school was the first of many battles they have to fight in order to ensure their child receives anything like an adequate education.

Absolutely correct - and there is no situation which illustrates this more clearly than that operating in Toowoomba. I daresay, it's not much different anywhere else.

The "private*" schools are quite happy to accept taxpayers money, but aren't prepared to offer places to the sons and daughters of all taxpayers, about 7% of whom have children with disabilities. 

*(These schools should more accurately be called "subsidised" schools, because that is, in fact, what they are). They receive vast amounts of taxpayers' money.

Also worth considering are some of the recommendations of this bipartisan committee -

Recommendation 1
4.75 The committee recommends that the government contribute to schools on the basis of need, according to the Gonski Review.

4.76 The committee recommends that the government fund all students with disability on the basis of need by reversing its cuts to final two years of the Gonski Reforms.

Such recommendations are interesting in the light of recent announcements about Gonski.

Anyway, these issues remain close to my heart, and I intend to pursue them at every opportunity. 

These kids and their families could do with your help, gentle reader.

 

My Country's Shame

Milad Jafari  - Pic Courtesy Catholic Leader

There's plenty happening around the asylum seeker situation at the moment to warrant a post on the subject.

As usual, most of it can only be categorised as shameful.

First, there's the revelation that Save the Children workers were booted from a detention centre on a lie. This, of course, is hardly surprising given the government's sensitivity to criticism, but it's worth examining the chain of events to fully understand the evil being done to both asylum seekers and the Australian taxpayer.

On October 3rd 2014, The then Immigration Minister Morrison claimed (and I quote) Save the Children staff were "coaching asylum seekers to manufacture situations where evidence could be obtained to pursue a political and ideological agenda in Australia". 

Ten of these staff were unceremoniously deported from Nauru.

Subsequently, two inquiries have been conducted into these allegations.

The Moss Review finding relevant to the conduct of Save the Children employees was -

The review obtained information from Wilson Security intelligence reports, interviews and other material. None of this information indicated conclusively to the Review that particular contract service provider staff members had engaged in these activities.  

(Review into recent allegations relating to conditions and circumstances at the Regional Processing in Nauru -   Executive Summary p 5/6)

A Senate Review which followed, found, inter alia -

conditions in the centre were "not adequate, appropriate or safe for the asylum seekers detained there".

So, in summary, people employed under contract to ensure the welfare of asylum seekers and their children have been unjustly turfed because of government paranoia about how the situation looks in the media, and the place isn't safe for its inmates. (And it looks like you and me, the taxpayers, will be asked to compensate them.) 

So forgetting, for a moment that those interned have no idea of release dates, no hope for the future, and absolutely no rights whatsoever, the camps are unsafe places.

This is being carried out, gentle reader, in your name.

Then, of course, there is the continuing obscenity that is the Mojgan Shamsalipoor case which has been dragging on for months.

Again, the separation of a married couple and the likelihood that the deportation of the wife may result in her being harmed, possibly killed, is being conducted in your name.

If "stopping the boats" was the goal of these policies, it has largely been achieved. Why then, are people continuing to be treated in much the same way as the Nazis treated Jews in World war two?

The most significant difference between these camps and the notorious camps of WW2, is the lack of gas chambers, although they are being called a "solution".

Interesting, isn't it, how that "solution" word has turned up in history in relation to the treatment of specific groups of people. The "Pacific Solution", I think, was the phrase John Howard was content to use.  

Let's not beat about the bush, these places (Nauru, Manus and Christmas Island), are quite simply, concentration camps.

I never thought I'd live to see my country running concentration camps.

All Aboard

Poster's not all that clear - but intention is.

There's been a lot of ranting and raving about "political correctness" lately on some of the far Right media.

Much of it has been directed at the senior service, specifically towards a long serving strategic adviser Captain Mona Shindy, who just happens to belong to the Muslim faith.

The fact that a Muslim, especially a female Muslim, is a member of the ADF is obviously very hard for some to swallow, but when she shows that she has the audacity to hold opinions different from theirs, apoplexy sets in.

Those same members of the media Right have been very quiet about a scandal that has erupted around HMAS Perth, and a National party fundraiser.

Read all about it here. The poster above had been in circulation briefly before it all hit the fan. Apologies for the lack of definition in the pic, but it reads in part -

I invite you to a unique luncheon experience with Nationals WA leadership on board the Australian Navy vessel HMAS Perth which includes a tour of HMAS Stirling.... 

The choice of "unique" is a pretty fair descriptor. It's not every day that a very expensive  Australian military asset is used as a venue for a political fundraiser. We're talking $1000 per head - nothing but the best when it comes to the WA Nationals.

I fail to detect any wails of indignation from those who pilloried Captain Shindy for alleged political bias. You can't tell me that the skipper of the Perth had all this sprung on him without agreeing to host it.  

I wonder if he still has a twitter account?


 

2015 in Review

This little beauty was released in 2015 (MX5 ND)

In many ways, 2015 has been a very significant year.

Think back to the start of 2015, and things looked a little different. Tony Abbott was PM, Joe Hockey our Treasurer, and Campbell Newman was Queensland's Premier.

Many Queenslanders were surprised when Noddy was given the flick on January 31st.

Our kitchen organiser for week ending January 31st 2015.

 I wasn't, because my bride put a reminder on our kitchen organiser on the date of the state election, and anything written on that organiser becomes set in stone.

A lot later in the year, Metronome Tone also got punted.

We didn't put that one on the kitchen organiser, as we didn't get to vote, not being members of the parliamentary Liberal caucus and all.

The two events are connected in the sense that two far-Right figures were relegated, one to the fringe of his party, the other clear out of politics. Queenslanders and Australians will always sniff out ideologues, and it didn't take them very long in the case of these two.

The other event of significance in 2015 was the Paris climate agreement. I don't think too many of us would have forecast the bulk of the nations of the world getting together under the auspices of the United Nations and agreeing to limits on greenhouse gas production.

The wailing and gnashing of teeth from the troglodytes is only now beginning to subside.

I'm looking forward to 2016.

Things are looking up.......

On a personal note - two events - both in Adelaide - were highlights.

One was the 7 RAR Anzac to Adelaide reunion.

The other was my number two son's graduation from Flinders. It was a very good year.

It's Christmas

Have a happy and Holy Christmas, gentle reader.

Taxing Times

Do you pay tax, gentle reader?

I do, and have done so  since 1963, when I started work at age fifteen.

The only exception to that was the year (1970) when I was on active service in South Vietnam.

Mind you, the ATO wasn't all that happy about that, and sent me a nasty letter in 1972 (it took them two years to catch up with me)  complaining that I hadn't submitted a return for the 1970 - 71 financial year.

Sending them a copy of my discharge certificate did the trick, but I never did get any acknowledgement or apology.

So that means I've been paying tax for fifty-two years, all my working life. It would be interesting to calculate the total I've paid during that time.

I reckon it would be well over six figures.

It is a bit mind-blowing, therefore, to be apprised of the fact that about 1500 corporate entities operating in this country haven't paid tax during the  2013 - 14 income year.

Here, gentle reader, is the complete list. It makes compelling reading.

Note, once you get past those that paid no tax (first section in the list) you get to see the list of those who did actually pay tax. For these, the interesting part is the percentage of tax paid as a proportion of income. It averages at about 5%.

Anyhow, it's fascinating to note the following -

1. Many corporations earn considerable income, but no taxable income is listed.

2. Many corporations have taxable income listed, but pay no tax.

3. Those that do pay tax, generally pay anything between 5% and 10%. Compare that with what you pay.

Some well know corporations are worth a mention -

ACER Computer Australia earned $309,078,107 and paid no tax.

General Motors Australia earned $4,138,128,813 but paid no tax.

Puma Energy Holdings (Australia) earned $2,449,375,592 but - you guessed it - paid no tax.

 

Hard to believe? perhaps, but these are official ATO figures. Obviously there's a whole litany of tax whispering dodges that mere mortals like you and I aren't privileged to access.

To quote one notorious Australian pollie - please explain!

So in summary - thousands of corporations operating in this country earn revenue in this country but pay no tax in this country. Those that do pay an average of 5%.

That's a bloody sight less than what I pay, and have paid for over fifty years. It's clearly unjust, but is possible because there is a very profitable tax minimization industry operating in Australia, as it does everywhere else in the world.

As they say in the classics, there are crooks, and then there are tax lawyers. Generally the two groups are indistinguishable.

Perhaps the only action open to the mug taxpayer (like you and me) is to reveal the truth, and perhaps boycott the tax evading corporations. Maybe a social media campaign would be effective.

The News Limited media writes about dole bludgers. I wonder what it would take to get them to acknowledge tax bludgers?

But hang about, News Limited paid no tax on their $2.8 billion revenue last financial year.

There's a connection there somewhere.

Agreement in Paris

Pic courtesy The Guardian

The agreement recently signed in Paris is very significant, but perhaps not for the reasons trumpeted in most of the mainstream media.

Sure, there is now an international goal of reducing carbon emissions which should help ensure a viable future for generations ahead, and a rational application of the precautionary principle.

But that is not, gentle reader, the most significant element of this event.

As far as I know, this is the first time that so many nations have agreed on anything.

This demonstration of harmony, and its associated display of consensus is extraordinary.

This is best displayed by the reactions of the conflict entrepreneurs, both here and in the US.

Variously, the agreement is characterised as a socialist conspiracy, an attempt by the elites to take over, or the aberration of a lunatic religion.

These reactions convince me, just as the science does, that the agreement is critically important. The deniers have the same world view as those who authorised the spraying of deadly defoliant on the jungles of Vietnam.

Back then, the end justified the means, and now, the same thinking is revealed by these reactions. The difference is that the "end" is greed, not a military victory.

The result will probably be the same, but not before a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth by those with vested interest in the status quo.

It occurs to me that if so many nations can reach a consensus on this issue, then perhaps they should, under the auspices of the UN, begin looking at other significant international problems, such as poverty, preventable disease, and international terrorism.

In the case of the latter, any effort would have to be more successful that the current approach.