Australian Politics, Mark II

What are you trying to say boot?

Nothing extraordinary mate. I was just answering beasties post above yours.

Er chill eh.

Regardless it would be good if issues of harassment could be raised when they occur.

This is nothing like Kavanagh for what it’s worth. (the use of #metoo for political advantage stinks.) in both cases I think the women have been used however.

Using power to sexually harass is a massive problem and often the flipside is using accusations of sexual harassment as a weapon to bring down power.

It’s the former that needs stamping out without the later undermining it.

I feel for the victims. I just think it’s a criminal matter and he should have been charged at the time.

It’s a bit like the Essendon Saga. We can all relate that this should have been sorted with ASADA and the AFL before being made public.

Trial by media does noone any favours in any circumstances.

‘We are under assault’: Major universities go to war with Morrison government over research cuts

Michael Koziol

The country’s biggest universities say they are “under assault” and have launched an extraordinary attack on the Morrison government over a fresh round of cuts to academic research.

Vice-chancellors are furious about a $134 million raid on research funding to pay for student places at regional universities - as well as other Coalition measures in the works including a free speech blitz, a “national interest test” for research grants and a new tax on enrolments.

“We are under assault on a number of different fronts – on teaching and learning, on research and on funding,” the head of the Group of Eight major universities, Vicki Thomson, told Fairfax Media.

“You add all of those things together … I think universities are in a very precarious position - more precarious than we have ever been.”

On Monday it emerged that $134 million being injected into regional universities would be raided from the Research Support Program, which funds researchers’ salaries, laboratories and libraries.

University of Sydney vice-chancellor Michael Spence warned universities would be forced to slash research as a result.

“Combined with the funding freeze on domestic student places, today’s announcement will see thousands of prospective students - including those from remote and regional backgrounds - miss out on places in Australia’s leading universities, including the University of Sydney,” he said.

“Alongside Australia’s already declining research investment, this funding arrangement will see many universities left with no option but to cut research into Australia’s most pressing challenges, including in the many areas that directly benefit rural communities.”

Margaret Gardner, the vice-chancellor of Monash University, said the funding decision was “reckless” and furthered cumulative cuts to research, university funding and student places.

“It really does feel like the death of a thousand cuts,” she told Fairfax Media.

"Each one is talked away, but when you add them together, and you look at the impact on a budget, it is very seriously affecting the quality of the education we can support.

“This was a raid on university research that was actually unnecessary and could have really deleterious effects on research overall.”

A spokeswoman for ANU vice-chancellor Brian Schmidt said the university supported the Group of Eight’s statements.

Vice-chancellors are also reeling about a planned “national interest test” for research grants issued through the Australian Research Council. On Sunday, Fairfax Media revealed the test would preclude projects deemed to undermine Australia’s security, foreign policy and strategic interests.

Other irritants include a planned review of free expression on campus and Education Minister Dan Tehan’s plan to force student protesters to pay for their own security at events they disrupt - as well as a proposed levy on universities for every student who accesses a government loan.

The Group of Eight called it a “blatant new tax” dressed up as cost recovery. The bill, introduced in September, is yet to pass the Parliament.

Education Minister Dan Tehan has defended the changes. CREDIT:ALEX ELLINGHAUSEN

Mr Tehan defended the government’s decision to raid the research coffers as a “small re-allocation within the $17 billion higher education budget”. He said it would help give regional students the same opportunities as their capital city counterparts.

Much of the money will fund new student places at institutions in the key election battleground of Queensland, including James Cook University and the University of the Sunshine Coast, effectively exempting them from the freeze applied last year.

But even regional vice-chancellors who will benefit from the $134 million cash injection were angered to learn the money had been reallocated from research funding.

Scott Bowman, the head of Central Queensland University, told Fairfax Media he was “quite shocked [and] quite sad to hear that the money is coming from elsewhere in the university system”.

Professor Bowman said he was “grateful” for the extra cash, “but really it’s just money that we should be getting anyway”.

The debate over academic research was turbocharged by revelations Mr Tehan’s predecessor, Simon Birmingham, used ministerial powers to veto 11 arts and humanities projects recommended to the government for approval. It was the first time a minister had used such powers in a decade.

On Monday, Ms Thomson accused the government of being blind to the value of academic research.

“There’s a concerning naivety around the impact and value that research has in the national interest – whether that be an economic impact or a social impact,” she told Fairfax Media.

“That’s not to take away from the fact that universities use taxpayers funding to undertake research – we need transparency and we’re all up for that - but there’s evidence of overreach more broadly.”

I’m guessing you’re not fully across the details on this?? Vis a vis timing etc. and the bolded.

Nvr mnd. , … all been said I see.

So are you suggesting sexual assaults going unreported is a good thing? I’d call grubby anyone who knew about it but remained silent. I can understand victims thinking that silence is in their best interests but really anyone who knows about a sexual assault should report it immediately.

FFS. All I said was that she didn’t want any action taken, and just wanted to forget it and move on. Then someone else brought it to public attention for their own grubby political reasons. I said nothing of right or wrong, gave no opinion of my own apart from the use of such situations/knowledge for political gain was grubby.

And you really believe that making something like this public, against the wishes of the victim, for your own personal advancement, is a good and noble thing?

3 Likes

I just think that had this been reversed & it was a Lib who assaulted her & an ALP member bringing it to light, there would be a very different response. Maybe I need to go back & re-read the US politics thread & see if you were so adamant that the democrats were grubby in pushing the allegations against Kavanaugh for political gain.

I wouldn’t give a fark who, or from what party the politician was. It’s grubby, and wrong.

wut?

It’s JBOMBER.

It’s Wim, too.
I’m sorry, I believe the timing of that was entirely political.

I don’t feel the same way about this.
And I think this whole, ‘should have reported it at the time’ is…quite naive, and presumptuous.
And I think a lot of people who think ‘just suck it up’ are cross with her because she did.

1 Like

Sexual harassment laws relate to conduct in public life ( for example employment, the provision of goods and services, education) not necessarily conduct outside of public life ( e.g groping in a bar) . Not all sexual harassment is unlawful. Sexual assault ( such as rape, stalking) can be dealt with as a criminal matter, but even then, it is not always pursued ( for example the Geelong girl who was gang raped) .
I am not sure of the extent of the Human Rights powers to address harassment outside of conduct in public life.
It is not up to us to make judgments on why people do not pursue complaints, but it is important that there is a proper system to pursue complaints.

3 Likes

So do I. But the difference is that it wasn’t outed by a politician seeking personal advantage, but by the woman herself. And that’s a fairly large difference to me.

2 Likes

Not sure I used the term harassment at all in relation to the allegations against Foley. My understanding is the claims are of sexual assault & I’m not aware on any circumstances where that is not illegal. I have no idea how long this information was known before being exposed in Parliament but I’d suggest that if political gain was the only motivator they should have waited a while longer until a few weeks before the election for maximum damage. I’m not suggesting the reasons for exposing the allegations were completely altruistic either, of course a political opponent will use it, but my position is that all sexual assaults should be exposed ASAP.

Then I’ll take it neither of you blokes watched Blasey Fords testimony to the Senate committee, and heard when, and why she contacted her Congress woman. JFTR, it was when Trumps nominee list was released, and she saw Ol Kav was shortlisted, … long before he became the nominee.

1 Like

Ultimately its up to the assaulted person to determine if they press charges. Its always been this way and should remain this way.

1 Like

Sexual assault has strict legal definitions. Is it certain that Foley’s acts come within those definitions?

The police can factor in the victims wishes but they are obliged to act on the evidence they are faced with. In domestic violence cases for example the partners are often unwilling to bring charges against their spouse because they fear further violence or are simply trying to prevent somebody they love going to jail. This does not prevent the police pursuing the charges.

below is from the Victims of Crime website
“Although both the police and OPP consider the views of the victim, decisions about what charge to lay are based on the evidence collected during the investigation, legal principles and the public interest.”