OPINION by James Jansson
In this article, I make the argument that free child care has a net benefit over the long-term that outweighs the financial outlay of providing child care, and that current calculations are misleading about their benefits. This is a discussion of strategy as much as it is rights, where the aim is to maximise outcomes for women in terms of equality of income. I believe that a move to equal outcomes for women, particularly when it comes to the workplace, results in utility gains not only for the women who are affected but also for the other members of society.
Things are getting exciting here at the Future Party. We have some big challenges and fantastic opportunities ahead of us in the short-term, and I need as many people as possible to join the online meeting (13th May 2015, 7 PM) so that we can get organised to achieve our goals. The most important things we are going to discuss:Read more
The media is going nuts for the big number everyone's been waiting for: Chinese investors drop $12.4 billion on real estate (residential and non-residential). Sounds big right?Read more
The Future Party will be making a submission to the Tax White Paper. The focus will be primarily on removing the 50% discount on Capital Gains Tax (that allows wealthy investors to get a lower tax rate) and Land Value Tax. If you would like to help us write, format, and promote our submission, please let us know at email@example.com
We'll be working online using Google Docs. You can see the structure and the main points in our very early draft document here. Please feel free to comment on this document. We are also aggregating important links in this document.Read more
The Science Party Space Policy has been developed to take the best ideas from the Australian Academy of Science (AAS) National Committee for Space Science (NCSS), who have studied it, and who know how best Australia can be a part of it.
The key to cheaper housing is more supply, not rent controls.
Joe Hockey has justified the cuts to Medicare rebates, by saying that people born today may live to 150. The Future Party is also optimistic about the life expectancy of people into the future. However, for life expectancy to increase, two things must occur: increases in health care provision and increases scientific research. This government seems intent on making cuts to both these areas, something that puts the notion of extended life at risk.Read more
Its a question about as old as talking about government, politics and the security of the state. Who will watch over the watchers themselves? The Abbott government's answer, apparently, is no one.
The Coalition, ALP and PUP have combined in the Senate today to pass legislation that among other changes grants ASIO extraordinary new powers to declare a "special intelligence operation" - exempting its agents from obeying nearly every Australian law, and making it a crime for whistle-blowers and journalists to report. This effectively eradicates, in some circumstances, two of the major checks and balances on the powers granted to intelligence community - namely, the rule of law, and potential disclosure. The removal of these safeguards is especially troubling in light of the totally inadequate response to recent alleged abuses of powers justified in the name of national security, such as the ongoing pursuit of the former ASIS agent who disclosed spying on East Timor by Australia apparently conducted for the sake of an advantage in trade negotiations.
The Industry Minister, Ian Macfarlane, has proven again why we need a dedicated Science Minister: he doesn't understand how science works. He recently gave a speech in which he argued that scientific grants should be based on number of patents awarded, because in his view this will create jobs. This demonstrates a failure to grasp two critical concepts: the difference between scientific research and patentable inventions, and the reason why we fund science using taxes.
Scientific research is quite different to technological research, despite being intimately related. In particular, only inventions are patentable; discoveries are not. When we think of great scientists, we generally think of Einstein first. Einstein's theories were not patentable, because they were discoveries of the natural universe, explored using novel mathematical ideas. None of these count as inventions for the purposes of patent law.Read more