Morgan May

Tag: policy

  • Letter to the Editor #3

    Letter to the Editor #3

    https://www.afr.com/politics/albanese-must-say-no-to-bailing-out-andrews-20230403-p5cxqi

    https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/chalmers-jets-off-with-no-real-growth-strategy-20230412-p5czv2

    April 14, 2023

    There was some concerning use of words and punctuation in the editorials “Albanese must say no to bailing out Andrews” (April 12) and “Chalmers jets off with no real growth strategy” (April 13).

    Daniel Andrews has invested a significant amount in infrastructure for Melbourne and Victoria; the use of the word “profligate”, which means recklessly extravagant or wasteful, seems shortsighted. Was the Sydney Opera House profligate at the time?

    This is infrastructure that will benefit future generations. As for the comment about Victoria’s credit rating, why are the rating agencies still in business after they failed so miserably in the lead-up to the GFC?

    The use of punctuation on the words “care economy” was disrespectful to the work, “care” and sacrifices parents put in (not to mention all the other types of carers). This attitude is then reflected in flagging NDIS for “out of control” spending. As for who will pay for it – didn’t the Productivity Commission model this as paying for itself? If they were wrong about this, what else are they wrong about?

    Is it ever possible to remove ideology from data? At the very least outdated ideology? The ideology that we are all ‘individuals’, the ideology or is it propaganda that shouts down the suggestion that we are not with the very simplistic opposite – ‘socialism’, the ideology that women must be forced, cornered even, into care duties by the deprivation of their own resources. And to then dismiss that work as ‘worthless’, to have it looked down upon, is just so disrespectful, I’d like to say it’s ‘un-Australian’ but unfortunately it seems it is very much not.

  • Letter to the Editor #2

    Letter to the Editor #2

    March 6, 2023

    https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/workplace/rich-women-a-social-revolution-worth-celebrating-20230301-p5colw

    As a professional woman, the above article appeared to strike all the right notes, until it didn’t and then became rather concerning.. 

    You state: 

    “The steady surge in female participation has also been a source of economic growth and greater prosperity for all Australians. That is worth underlining … to guard against zero-sum gender thinking.”

    And then proceed to champion zero-sum gender thinking:

    There are also fresh questions about helping women to balance work and family responsibilities. Labor’s policy of extending generous childcare subsidies to wealthy families will supposedly remove financial barriers to higher participation by women with children. Yet, this has been questioned by Productivity Commission research in 2015 that found the boost to participation rates would be “small” due to the different work and family choices women make.

    Where are the policies designed to help men balance work and family responsibilities?  Is sperm no longer required to make a child? I seem to have missed those headlines..

    The current childcare policy was perniciously designed to discourage women from advancing in the workplace, whilst simultaneously lining the pockets of a small group of men who own thousands of childcare ‘businesses’, and makes every women who goes to work the star of her very own performance of Alice in Wonderland  – 

    “My dear, here we must run as fast as we can, just to stay in place. And if you wish to go anywhere you must run twice as fast as that.”

    And then, neatly summed up in one sentence, the reason why Australia fails it’s women so miserably ..

    Nobody can question the benefits of Australian women’s expanded role in the market economy.  – and yet you then go on to question exactly that with:

    But there is a legitimate debate to be had about the extent to which taxpayers should underwrite a woman’s rightful place in the workforce. That just goes to show how big the social revolution has been.

    Whereas, I think the real question to be asked, that I think all women would like answered, is 

    “to what extent should women continue to be subsidising the creation of taxpayers, to the detriment of their own wellbeing, both professionally and financially.” 

    And what will you do if we stop?