 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: LeWhite
Date: 2003-11-19 10:45
An excerpt from the Student Union:
If Brendan Nelson pushes through his Higher Education Reforms the VCA will be hit with a 35% funding cut. That's nearly $5 million! The architect of these reforms, federal Minister Brendan Nelson, has argued that the University of Melbourne can cover the shortfall - but this will not happen. The University of Melbourne Council has decided that it will not provide the VCA with any extra funding to cover the 35% cut. As you are no doubt aware, College teaching and learning resources are already stretched to the limit!
Even if the College switched to up-front fees for local undergraduates it is very doubtful that the College could survive. In any case, entry to the College should be based on merit, not money.
The Federal Government has the money to fund the VCA. The Federal budget is apparently way into a surplus (a projected $6.5 billion!). Presently, Federal funding provided to AFTRS and NIDA combined comes to $23.6 million for just 280 students. Poor VCA gets a bit more than $13 million for 692 students.
The Victorian College of the Arts could be unjustly closed by arrogant politicians. I just wanted to let the world know of this massive injustice.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-11-19 11:45
Now, for the opposing point of view ...
|
|
|
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2003-11-19 18:13
yeah, but you won the rugby.
donald
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2003-11-19 19:33
Making a program work without money is great preparation for show biz.
Whinging here, will do exactly diddle for your problem.
Most politicos attend to the interests of people that actually vote.
This is why campus recruiting is minimal in the US of A and free donuts are provided by the Young Republicans club at the senior centers. (They vote)
******
If there are hungry people in a rich country - that's an injustice.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2003-11-19 21:18
Do you think Mr/Mrs Average is interested in hard earned money spent (via taxes) on the arts? Before, health, environment, wars? Get real. The current Federal Government have about as much regard for the arts as a canetoad. That's where the money comes from - then the state governments divide it up. If you're unhappy move the NSW - at least Bob Carr attends SSO/Opera/Ballet on a regular basis.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2003-11-19 21:21
We vote from 18 years of age in Aust and this includes Collge of the Arts students, so politicians should take note.
The present conservative government is bent on privatising everything and opening up our markets fully to foreign trade. This not a particularly bad thing in some respects, as long as there are checks and balances.
However the free trade agreement John Howard [our PM, by the way] is hoping for with the USA will have very little in this regard with respect to the arts. I'm thinking principally of cinema and TV - in our newspapers this morning, cinema producers say they are not looking forward to the complete flooding of our markets with US productions. Currently [and almost unbeliveably] 70+% of new TV and cinema releases are of US origin. This compares unfavourably with the USA and the UK where the situation is approximately the reverse. Hands up anyone who can even name an Australian film - no prizes for Crocodile Dundee by the way, and anything by Mel Gibson is not counted either - he's American.
In the music industry, parallel importing of CDs is having an effect on the efforts of music producers to foster home grown talent - principally pop music - but who's not heard of AC/DC? They became world famous in the days of a burgeoning music industry in Oz - it's a struggle for the younger musicians now.
So I'd support LeWhite's concerns. As for the rugby who really cares? Australia wins practically everything of a sporting nature anyway - hey, guess why? The government is generous with the money here, because it brings in the tourists!
|
|
|
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2003-11-19 21:22
LeWhite, sorry about your funding reduction. Of course, it is not unique in this world.
Also not unique in this world is that government ministers referred to as "arrogant" will hardly be impelled to give the name-callers the time of day, much less more money. In other words, that ain't the way to do it.
"Oh, yes, thank you so much for calling me an arrogant politician. Here, have a few million on me as a token of my appreciation for your kind remarks." Eh? I don't think so.
Regards,
John
|
|
|
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2003-11-19 21:29
Indeed, also - the bottom line for Australian Federal politicians is that they serve two terms and THEN get the most incredible superannuation (retirement benefit payment) package - thanks to my hard earned dollar. But the average Mr/Ms Australian - gets a tiny employer contribution ... so if you think they're in the political game to change the world - you're wrong, they know when they retire they'll be living on a retirement income of about $90,000 (more if you happen to be an ex PM). I don't earn that sort of money in two years as a WORKER.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Snowy
Date: 2003-11-19 21:36
Well, could not the VCA amalgamate with the Australian Institute of Sport for access to absolutely unlimited funding ?
|
|
|
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2003-11-19 22:37
Voting eligibility begins at age 18 in the US, also. The problem is that for whatever reason, most younger people don't bother to vote, and politicians know that very well.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-11-19 22:52
This is about as long as I let any discussons which are political by their very nature exist.
Closed.
|
|
|
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
