Posts Tagged australia

How To Get Larger Payouts With Your Private Injury lawyer

compensation claims, injury lawyer, accident at work

No one desires to get a into a auto accident which causes Private injury. besides the discomfort, which can make life quite hard to reside, there is also elements like getting to take time off function, or out of your company. there might be medical bills that require to be paid. Your loved ones and family members will be stressed, worried sick, and there can be even worse consequences.

So it is essential to at least maximise any payout that you may get as a outcome of the accident.

This is exactly where Brisbane lawyers come in. Here in sunny Queensland, we have some of the very best and most competent law firms in Australia. so it should not be too difficult to get a large money settlement.

The initial stage typically tends to be the most challenging and most typically forgotten – writing down anything that occurred at the scene, appropriate immediately after the accident. Of course, taking notes is frequently the final thing on people’s minds when a thing like this has occurred. but notes from the scene can be quite essential, so if at all feasible, write down specifically what occurred, particulars of any injuries, and so on.

And when you come to employ a Brisbane attorney, make certain he or she is skilled. A excellent Individual injury lawyer will be in a position to maximise your payout and make items as straightforward for you as feasible. An skilled attorney will be in a position to start off by telling you no matter whether you’ve a winnable case or not. if not, there is no use in chasing it, and any very good Brisbane lawyer will be in a position to tell you about earlier situations just like yours.

If you happen to be going for it, your law firm will be in a position to create a technique to prove your condition and how it impacts your life, how and why the defendant is at fault, and what fair compensation would be for you. A excellent Brisbane lawyer will perform with not only your physical injuries, but also with any emotional discomfort you happen to be feeling as a outcome of what occurred. This can frequently double your settlement.

You’ve rights and your Individual injury lawyer is going to fight for them, and seasoned lawyers have an edge which ought to see them win a lot more circumstances than they shed. They’ll call up witnesses, they’ll present proof, they’ll argue convincingly that you have been wronged, your life is tougher and much less fulfilling as a outcome, and you deserve at least a thing in compensation.

A great seasoned law firm will be in a position to investigation the defendant as nicely. This is essential as you need to have to know how high to aim. if you are dealing with a huge business with deep pockets, your Brisbane attorney will be in a position to go right after a a lot greater settlement than if you are going immediately after a tiny company or Private.

The old saying is accurate, you can not get blood out of a stone.

Most Private injury circumstances are settled out of court. you will possibly get an supply from the defendant when the case is created clear. This is exactly where the knowledge of your attorney is most critical. Just about all 1st delivers will be reasonably low, they are just shaking the tree to see what falls out. Your knowledgeable Brisbane lawyer will know exactly where a particular provide stands, and no matter whether you really should accept or reject it.

If your case is solid, your lawyer seasoned, and your suffering real, then you really should be in a position to get a large money settlement to set your life back on track.

To locate out far more about your alternatives relating to skilled, competent attorneys in Brisbane go to Brisbane Lawyers [http://www.brisbanelawyersdirectory.com] Directory.com

How To Get Larger Payouts With Your Private Injury lawyer

, ,

No Comments

Crisis of confidence in the justice system says Chief Justice Bathurst after the horse has bolted.

In a speech given at the NSW Law Society at the end of January 2012 Chief Justice Bathurst of the NSW Supreme Court said there is a crisis of confidence in the justice system.

If he wants to know a major reason for the crisis in confidence he need look no further than his own court, the NSW Supreme Court, and his predecessor, Chief Justice Spigelman, who resigned in disgrace on the 31st May 2011. Mr Spigelman still needs to answer some serious questions about his own criminal conduct and the corruption within the court, but more on that later.

CJ Bathurst’s reasoning seems to be that the lack of confidence is everyone elses fault except the judges. my argument is it is mostly to do with the criminal and corrupt conduct of judges and magistrates which CJ Bathurst conveniently overlooks completely.

From my reading of his speech his solution is for lawyers to hit the propaganda trail and get out there and start preaching.

CJ Bathurst said in relation to Australia “Only 35 per cent of us have confidence in our criminal justice system”.

His speech to a large degree dealt with juries and the benefits of having juries. But he made a number of statements that dealt with the broader issue of the publics confidence in the judicial system which is what I will focus on.

Below are some extracts from his speech which are in Italic and with their page numbering from his speech and with my comments below. (Click here to read the full speech) (It is 20 pages but uses a very large font so is a quick read).    

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

OPENING OF LAW TERM DINNER 2012

LAW SOCIETY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE T F BATHURST

CHIEF JUSTICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

SYDNEY, 30 JANUARY 2012

Page 3

“Members of the lay community participate in criminal justice as a matter of course: as witnesses, complainants, accused and remanded. But in these roles they act as individuals. Their experiences and actions are not reflections of the collective social consciousness. when I speak of the community as a participant in the criminal justice system, therefore, I am referring to two roles in particular. first, to the active role of the jury  – to assemble as a tribunal of 12 and pronounce judgment as a unanimous or near unanimous whole, on an individual accused of breaching our legal codes. second, I refer to the passive role the community plays as an observer of the legal system, whose trust is essential to its legitimacy.”

“my concern is that the criminal justice system is currently experiencing a crisis of confidence. Community trust in the criminal justice system is eroding. much of this distrust is fuelled by misinformation that is propagated by sections of the media who prefer to inflame rather than inform, and by politics that encourages fear mongering rather than educated debate.”

Well we can blame the politicians, the media and everyone else (which I quite often do), but the bottom line is if you are looking for someone to blame it is ultimately the judges and magistrates themselves. Too many are corrupt and there are plenty of examples on this site of that with many more to come.

Page 4

“in an international survey of public confidence in national criminal justice systems, Australia ranked 27th… of 36 countries. Only 35 per cent of us have confidence in our criminal justice system. and while nearly three quarters of us trust in the police, less than one third trust in the courts. Our confidence has also steadily declined over the last 15 years.”

“We are not alone in these low numbers. The people of Estonia, Croatia, Russia and Slovakia all report a similar lack of confidence in their criminal justice systems. however in the jurisdictions we are used to being compared with, such as the United Kingdom, Canada and Ireland, public confidence is much higher. at least 50 per cent of people in those countries have a high level of trust in their criminal justice systems. It may provide some consolation, if not a great deal, that we at least outrank the United States.”

That’s right we are right down there with the likes Russia and Croatia. But hey, we do outrank the US, how good is that. not very good at all really. Who can forget the “kickback scandal involving two elected judges who essentially jailed kids for cash. many of the children had appeared before judges without a lawyer” in 2009. Former Luzerne County Senior Judge Michael Conahan and Luzerne County President Judge mark Ciavarella ”secretly received more than $2.6 million, prosecutors said” they both pleaded guilty. (Click here to read the full story)

Then there is the classic story of the US judge, former Oklahoma district judge Donald Thompson, that in 2006 received four years jail for exposing himself in court while on the bench. this is what it says on the USA Today site ”A former judge convicted of exposing himself while presiding over jury trials by using a sexual device under his robe was sentenced Friday to four years in prison” (Click here to read the full story) So I would not be bragging about a better rating than the US.

In the US there is an organisation called Judicial Watch which has the motto “Because no one is above the law” that is dedicated at least in part to exposing and bringing to account corrupt judges. ”Judicial Watch seeks to ensure high ethical standards in the judiciary through monitoring activities and the use of the judicial ethics process to hold judges to account.” (Click here to read more)

Page 5

“Surveys show that most people in New South Wales trust that the rights of the accused are respected, that the accused are treated fairly, and that we effectively bring wrongdoers to justice. why then is there so little confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole? It is because of a misguided perception that the legal community is soft on crime and out of touch with community expectations.” (Bold added in the speech by CJ Bathurst)

What rot, blaming the publics perception on the soft on crime issue and judges being out of touch would only be a minor issue. It is the clear and blatant corruption in the courts that is the main reason people have no confidence in the courts.

Page 8

“therefore, public confidence in our courts and criminal justice system is not only necessary to the maintenance of the rule of law, but to the quality and perception of our governance structures.”

“in the popular consciousness, criminal justice often represents the entire legal system. Faith in it is likely to be determinative of faith in the whole.”

I totally agree with the part “necessary to the maintenance of the rule of law, but to the quality and perception of our governance structures.”

But the next paragraph is wrong, people look at the entire legal system when determining whether or not they have confidence in the courts and criminal justice just happens to fall within that. It is not the other way around as CJ Bathurst suggests.

Page 9

For the majority, at least, increased confidence will come from better information. there is little we can do about talkback radio and tabloid journalists trading on the demand for shock and scandal, but there are things we can do as members of the legal community to improve the public’s knowledge.

“First, we can participate in the debates about crime and sentencing reform that occur at all levels of society.”

“we should not forget that the discussions occurring in classrooms, on editorials and blogs, and even over talkback radio, are just as important in shaping public opinion and confidence in our justice system. Reasonable minds will differ as to the reforms we need, but we will remain true to our profession by participating in these debates and insuring they are kept informed and accurate.”

I am more than happy to debate anyone anytime including Chief Justice Bathurst. I wonder if I will have any takers. The real “shock and scandal” is coming from the courts themselves, not the media.

Page 19

“many other suggestions of ways to improve the jury process and confidence in the criminal justice system have been made, and should be investigated. I suggest that the proposals most likely to succeed are those that trust in people – in the members of the community and the jury – to be intelligent, diligent and fair. It is our responsibility to improve their chances by enlivening debate, and insuring that the information we distribute is accurate, relevant and accessible. Otherwise, we have little right to expect trust in a system that excludes the voice of the community it is meant to represent and protect.”

That is the problem, the voice of the people is excluded. can anyone tell me on what basis Chief Justice Bathurst and the rest of the judges in this country were appointed? no. Because it is all done behind closed doors. The vast majority are mates of the governing political party of the day.

And who investigates complaints about judges. With the exception of NSW and now Victoria there is no independent bodies to investigate complaints. It is my understanding in Victoria the complaints are going to be heard behind closed doors which is a joke. and where has the NSW Judicial Commission been with the corrupt deals that NSW Supreme Court has been signing off on between the NSW Crime Commission and criminals. these deals have been found to be illegal. The NSW Judicial Commission should be holding an open and public enquiry which they are not.

Back to former Chief Justice Spigelman, I did a post on him on the 12/3/11 and he announced 6 days later on the 18/3/11 that he would be resigning on the 31th of May 2012. no reason was given.

But if you want a reason read two previous posts, one on Spigelman and one of his dodgy judgements (Click here to read the full post)

And another where the criminal conduct of the registrar’s office is raised where I said in a previous post:

“how the deal generally worked is that the NSW Crime Commission would do deals with the criminals to forfeit some of their proceeds of crime. The deal is meant to go before a Judge at the NSW Supreme Court to approve and make sure it is above-board. But this was being circumvented and it would be signed off by a dodgy Registrar at the court. this is so that a Judge would not have to get their hands dirty as they would be required to give and publish reasons for their decision.”

“one of the things being missed is the role of the courts, the Registrar and the former Chief Justice, James Spigelman. not only would the NSW Crime Commission have known that having a court registrar sign off on the deals was illegal but Chief Justice Spigelman and the court would have known as well. if the registrar was signing off on the deal he/she would had to have received Chief Justice Spigelman’s approval one would have thought. The other option is that the registrar or registrar’s are corrupt.”

“But given Spigelman’s dodgy history and it would have to be odds on that he was up to his neck in it.” (Click here to read the full post).

I wonder what Linda Murph, CEO & Principal Registrar of the NSW Supreme Court (the lady standing in the photo) has told CJ Bathurst about corruption in the NSW Supreme Court. She obviously knows plenty given that the dodgy deals with the NSW Crime Commission would have been her responsiblity. 

It would be greatly appreciated if you spend a minute using Twitter, Facebook and email etc and put a link to this post (Do not send the whole post). just click on the icons below.

And make sure you follow this site by email which is on the top right of this page and about once a week you will get an email when there is a new post/story on this site. Thank you for your support.

Crisis of confidence in the justice system says Chief Justice Bathurst after the horse has bolted.

, , , ,

No Comments

An Insight Into The Down Under RSF Media Rankings

Wednesday, 15 February 2012, 11:44 am Article: West Papua Media Alerts

Analysis:http://www.pmc.aut.ac.nz/articles/explaining-australia%E2%80%99s-fall-rsf-world-press-freedom-index

ByMark Pearson

BRISBANE (Pacific Media Centre Online /Pacific Media Watch): the international media freedomgroup Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF – Reporters WithoutBorders) has released its 2011-12 World Press Freedom Indexand Australia has slipped 12 places from 18th to 30th amongthe 179 countries ranked. New Zealand also dropped fiveplaces and out of the top 10 to 13th.

Those results andthe organisation’s methodology deserve explanation anddebate. as RSF’s Australian correspondent for the past sixyears I offer some insights on both fronts, although I amnot a spokesperson for the organisation.

First to thelatest ranking: what factors contributed to Australia’sdecline in its media freedom status since 2010? for a start,the fact that there were five simultaneous governmentinquiries into news media regulation at the time it wasbeing compiled sent a message to the international communitythat, for a Western democratic nation, the Australiangovernment and its agencies were entertaining tougherregulatory measures.

They included the Convergence Review,its subsidiary Independent Media Inquiry, the NationalClassification Scheme Review, the CommonwealthGovernment’s Privacy Issues Paper and the AustralianCommunications and Media Authority’s review of privacyguidelines for broadcasters.

Between them they raised theprospects of new controls on print, broadcast and onlinemedia; a new tort of privacy; tough new classificationsystems across media; and the conversion of someself-regulatory bodies to regulatory status.

RSF was soconcerned by suggestions at the hearings of the IndependentMedia Inquiry that journalists should be licensed or thatthe Australian Press Council should be given powers to finemedia organisations for ethical breaches that they issued arelease on the matter.

Alleged leaksThe trialof Victorian police officer Simon Artz for alleged leaks toThe Australian newspaper about a counter-terrorismoperation raised several media freedom issues, with Crikeysenior journalist Andrew Crook allegedly breaching asuppression order by revealing the name of a former memberof Victoria’s Special Intelligence Group involved in thehearing; warnings over Crikey journalist MargaretSimons live tweeting from the hearing; and TheAustralian’s Cameron Stewart being ordered to revealhis sources.

Victorian police launched an investigationinto an alleged hacking of an Australian Labor Partyelectoral database by four journalists at the Age, includingeditor-in-chief Paul Ramage.

Government control over mediaaccess to detention centres prompted condemnation from thejournalists’ union and RSF issued a release. TheDepartment of Immigration introduced new guidelines torestrict reporting of, and access to, detentioncentres.

As an international NGO, Reporters WithoutBorders takes a special interest in human rights issues andpresses for transparency and compassion in governments’handling of refugees.

The Federal Court’s ruling thathate speech laws should trump free expression was of concernwhen a judge ruled Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt breachedthe Racial Discrimination Act in his criticisms offair-skinned indigenous people.

Senior Fairfax executiveswere summonsed by the Police Integrity Commission to producedocuments revealing sources in September in relation toarticles by Herald journalists Linton Besser and Dylan Welchabout the NSW Crime Commission.

Denied accessInMay 2011, the ABC used a programming exemption to FOI lawsto deny The Weekend Australian and Herald Sunaccess to its audience data and employeesalaries.

Earlier, Fairfax’s deputy technology editorBen Grubb, 20, was arrested after reporting on a conferencepresenter’s alleged hacking at the AUSCert IT securityconference.

RSF has also expressed concern for some yearsat the Federal government’s determination to introduce aninternet filtering scheme.While it is still unlikely theAustralian government will have the political numbers tointroduce its proposed internet filtering scheme, it haspersuaded the major telecommunications providers and ISPs toadopt a “voluntary” scheme although they do not need to logor report incidents.

The government has used the review ofclassification schemes across media as the reason for thedelay in its pursuit of a mandatory filter. However, thiscan be read as a convenient political excuse for its lack ofparliamentary numbers to advance its filteringproposal.

All of this has happened against the backdrop ofAustralia being a rarity among democratic nations in nothaving freedom of the press or free expression statedexplicitly in its Constitution and lacking a bill of Rightswhere such freedoms are usually specified.

RSF’s panelweighed this data against that provided from other countriesas they compiled the latest World Press Index.

While theyhave received advice on their methodology from theStatistics Institute of the University of Paris, RSF do notclaim the index is a precise scientific measure.It couldnever be, given the enormous variables at stake, and has torely on an element of expert qualitative judgment whenmaking the final determinations of a country’s comparativeranking.

Human rightsThe process centres upon aquestionnaire sent to partner organisations (18 freedom ofexpression groups in all five continents), to its network of150 correspondents around the world, and to journalists,researchers, jurists and human rights activists.

Thequestionnaire features 44 main criteria indicative of thestate of press freedom. It asks questions about every kindof violation directly affecting journalists and‘netizens’ (including murders, imprisonment, physicalattacks and threats) and news media (censorship,confiscation of newspaper issues, searches andharassment).

It also measures the level of self-censorshipin each country and the ability of the media to investigateand criticise.

Points are allocated to each response inthe survey and scale devised by the organisation is thenused to give a country score to each questionnaire.

The179 countries ranked are those for which RSF receivedcompleted questionnaires from several sources.

Thequestionnaire takes account of the legal framework for themedia (including penalties for press offences, the existenceof a state monopoly for certain kinds of media and how themedia are regulated) and the level of independence of thepublic media. It also reflects violations of the free flowof information on the internet.

I compare the process withthe traditional approach academics have taken to essaymarking in universities. Scores might be assigned toselected attributes using a rubric, but the process isultimately a subjective one. that said, most academicsarrive at very similar grades when called upon to remark anessay. they draw upon years of experience and countlessearlier attempts by other students as their yardstick forassessing this one.

Many countries’ rankings change fromyear to year but there is little movement at the extremes.Europe typically dominates the top 10, with Scandinaviancountries like Norway and Finland among the top few, whilethe usual suspects feature at the other end of the scale:Iran, North Korea, Vietnam, China, Burma, Turkmenistan andEritrea.

Prior restraintFree expression is notabsolute, although its opposite, censorship, can be.

Themajor difference is in what the lawyers call “priorrestraint” – censorship before publication or broadcast.those at the top of the scale have high levels oftransparency and welcome media scrutiny of governmentprocesses, with a minimum of licensing, suppression and nophysical intimidation of journalists. at the other extremejournalists are murdered, jailed and tortured, publishers ofall kinds require a license, and Internet access isrestricted.

Over the past five years, Australia’sranking has fluctuated between 16 and 30 of the 179countries surveyed, typically ahead of the United States butwell behind New Zealand in the level of mediafreedom.

Governments might take issue with the methodologyand argue over their precise rankings, but the index drawson the energies of experts throughout the world and in Parisand is thus taken seriously in international circles.

Itserves to raise awareness about media and internet freedom,which cannot be a bad thing in an age of governmentspin.

Dr mark Pearson is professor of journalism atBond University and this commentary was first published inOnline Opinion. It has been republished with the permissionof the author.

PACIFIC MEDIA FREEDOM 2011 REPORT -The Pacific Journalism Review status report:http://www.pjreview.info/articles/pacific-media-freedom-2011-status-report-513

(cc)Creative Commons * Comment on thisitem: pmediawa@aut.ac.nz

+++niuswire

PACIFIC MEDIA WATCH ONLINEwww.pacmediawatch.aut.ac.nz

PACIFICMEDIA WATCH is a media and educational resource compiled bythe AUT Pacific Media Centre for the Pacificregion.

(c)1996-2010 Creative Commonshttp://creativecommons.org

*****

ENDS

An Insight Into The Down Under RSF Media Rankings

, , ,

No Comments

Abbott heading for a clash

Young men and women join the Royal Australian Navy for a variety of reasons: to fight for their country against its enemies, to learn a trade, to see the world, in the hope of adventure, or even to experience what Winston Churchill described as the tradition of “rum, sodomy and the lash.”

But it is a safe bet that none of them enlist in the hope of being ordered to turn leaky Indonesian fishing boats full of the wretched of the Earth back across the seas they have already braved rather than conduct them the much shorter distance to Australian territory.

quite apart from the obvious dangers such a course poses for both the hapless asylum seekers and the navy personnel who may well be called upon to risk their lives if the desperate boat people decide to sabotage their vessels rather than attempt the return journey, there will always be a feeling that this is not what they signed up for. The defence of Australia was never – at least until now – supposed to involve using violence against those who not only pose no threat, but are actually pleading for help.

and by doing so they would also be breaking the oldest and most venerable law of the sea: the first duty of sailors is to rescue those in danger, irrespective of whether they be friend or foe. to refuse to do so – in fact to send them into deeper peril – would be a violation of the ultimate moral code, as well as being a clear breach of international law.

so it is hardly surprising that the navy is less than enthusiastic about Tony Abbott's latest plan to end what he describes (hysterically) as “the crisis in Australia's border protection.” The central plank is for the navy to turn back all – not some, but all – craft bearing asylum seekers to Indonesia. Given that the Indonesians have stated bluntly that they are happy to take back their own crew members but they regard the asylum seekers as Australia's responsibility, this will presumably leave the hapless victims to drift until they founder.

Since they are unlikely to accept that outcome, the Australians will be faced with a choice: continue to repel them in accordance with Abbott's policy, risking sabotage, mayhem and the inevitable loss of life, or do what they have in the past-escort the boats to Christmas Island, arrest the crew and deliver the asylum seekers for detention and eventual processing, knowing that about nine out of 10 of them will be found to be genuine refugees and therefore entitled to protection under international law.

Abbott says that he would expect the navy to obey orders – the boats are to be turned back, no ifs and no buts. Sailors who refused to co-operate would presumably lay themselves open to a charge of mutiny against the Australian government, which might be better than being charged with breaking international law and possible crimes against humanity, for which, as we have known since Nuremberg, “I was only obeying orders” is no defence.

The policy has been condemned by naval personnel, lawyers and foreign affairs experts who have warned that apart from its dangers and illegalities, it would irrevocably sour Australia's always delicate relations with Indonesia, our nearest neighbour and our most important diplomatic link to ASEAN and through it to the whole of Asia.

Abbott's immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, has defended it, but without any great enthusiasm. Abbott's deputy and shadow Foreign Affairs Minister, Julie Bishop, and his shadow Defence Minister, David Johnson, have maintained deafening silence. The policy has been dismissed by former naval chief Chris Barrie as both illegal and unworkable, and denounced by others as silly, callous and possibly homicidal.

so how did Abbott come up with it and why does he persist with it? well, simply to show he's hairy chested; he has balls while Julia Gillard self-evidently does not.

Note the timing; when Abbott announced his brainwave, Morrison was supposedly in discussion with Gillard's Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, to try and find a compromise which would allow off-shore processing of asylum seekers – the policy supposedly espoused by both sides – to be implemented.

Bowen was indeed prepared to compromise; he offered to reopen Nauru, in spite of advice that it would not act as an effective deterrent to the people smugglers a second time around, and of what (he revealed later) were exorbitant cost estimates for refurbishing and running the place. he even suggested resurrecting the cruel and inhumane device of Temporary Protection Visas, the form of psychological torture whereby even those found to be genuine refugees were prevented from enjoying the rights of normal citizens for an indefinite period. Bowen put TPVs on the table even though they had proved to have disastrous unexpected consequences: those unable to seek reunion with their families, or even overseas visiting rights, persuaded wives and children to follow them through the asylum seeker route, adding greatly to the numbers risking their lives on the voyage.

Bowen was prepared to take on policies which he knew to be at best pointless and at worst positively dangerous in the cause of bipartisanship. Morrison, however, was prepared to concede nothing: Abbott's way or no way. he knew Bowen could not and would not surrender totally, and was therefore content to let the impasse continue and blame the government. But since that made him look both stubborn and cynical, and reinforced the general feeling that the opposition was so obsessed by the thought of power that it had forgotten policy altogether, Abbott decided that he had to do produce something positive – anything to prove that he was not really the black hole of negativity the government was successfully portraying.

so ‘Stop the Boats!' morphed into ‘Turn Back the Boats!' with no serious thought of either context or consequences. Illegal, unworkable, silly, callous and possibly homicidal; also thoroughly nasty at every level. But not negative – no one can accuse him of that. Action Man is back. Or should that be Stupefaction Man?

Abbott heading for a clash

, , , , ,

No Comments

Teaching cannot be a temporary assignment

Schools need a greater assurance of stability – as do their teachers.

PRINCIPALS apparently love it. so do many of the young teachers they employ, and even their more experienced colleagues, who might be expected to oppose minimally trained people joining them in the staffroom, have often been pleasantly surprised. But Teach for Australia has now received its first report card and it is clear that the program is not living up to expectations. Of the 45 graduates who began teaching in Victorian schools in 2010, only 25 will continue as teachers this year. Another nine will remain in education but at a step removed from schools, including studying full-time to enhance their qualifications. two of the high-profile recruits dropped out in the first year and nine will work in other industries, with some returning to earlier professions. In the absence of detailed statistics, it is impossible to know how this compares with the retention rate for young teachers who have embarked on their careers in a less controversial way, but it is unlikely that almost half of these give up on the profession so speedily.

While deeming the program a ”gamble of sorts”, the Age was nonetheless willing to see merit in the idea of taking carefully selected high achievers and, after six weeks of intensive training, employing them as teachers in hard-to-staff, disadvantaged schools. the passion and commitment to teaching they expressed, added to their intelligence and extensive subject knowledge, augured well for their students. But two years later, it is clearer that the $22 million in federal funding expended on this scheme – mostly used, it seems, for administration – has not been money well-spent. it is part of a patchwork approach to ”fixing” education that governments at both state and federal level seem unable to replace with vision and a commitment to improving the quality of schooling by investing in well-trained and properly paid teachers.

Principals in difficult schools were offered what amounted to a temporary bonus when they took on Teach for Australia associates (as the apprentice teachers are known). they did not have to cover their wages from their global budgets and their schools also benefited from the advice and support the new teachers received from academics and mentors who visited the schools regularly. But after two years of special treatment, these young teachers, now with bona fide qualifications, find themselves in the same situation as every other new teacher in the public education system: fighting for secure jobs in an environment where short-term contracts abound; receiving salaries that may be half the amount they received as engineers or lawyers (perhaps realising belatedly that idealism doesn’t feed a family and pay a mortgage); and understanding that neither the government, which spouts rhetoric about their importance, nor the general public holds them in the esteem teachers deserve.

Advertisement: Story continues below

If the experience of the first graduates of Teach for Australia tells us anything, it is that hastily devised copies of overseas programs (which sometimes have dubious records in their home countries) will never be more than stop-gap measures. Perhaps the problem with this program is implicit in its name. it has the ring of volunteer work, a temporary fix for long-standing problems. Prime Minister Julia Gillard almost said as much in 2010, the year the 45 high-achieving graduates, many with other professional experience, began their two-year stints in disadvantaged schools. Discussing her plans for Teach next, an offshoot of the program, which is intended to recruit highly skilled and qualified professionals in areas such as maths and science, she was optimistic about people being prepared to give up better-paid jobs to take up teaching, saying: ”I am full of enthusiasm for the dedication of Australians to make a difference.” At best this is naivety. At worst it reveals a total misunderstanding of teachers’ role in shaping young lives.

AN ENDURING characteristic of dictators is their insistence that they are increasing the freedom of those over whom they rule even as they are taking it away. Thus Fiji’s military ruler, Commodore Frank Bainimarama, this week announced new laws allowing people to be arrested and detained for 14 days without access to the courts if they are suspected of offences ”against public safety or preservation of the peace”.

But the country’s Attorney-General, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, denied that this increase in the power of the army and police had anything to do with inhibiting criticism of the government. Apparently it is to prevent ”dangerous elements” from threatening Fiji’s march towards democratic elections – a march that, to everyone except Commodore Bainimarama and his ministers, resembles the progress of an undernourished snail across the Grand Canyon. the coup in which Commodore Bainimarama seized power was in 2006, but elections are not scheduled until September 2014. With its latest announcement, the regime has provided a depressing but predictable vindication for the reactions of those who thought the scrapping last week of emergency regulations under which Fiji has been governed since 2009 was too good to be true.

But for all its repressive tendencies, Fiji’s military government is not the world’s most brutal tyranny. There are many contenders for the title, not least the Baathist regime in Syria, where President Bashar al-Assad also this week held out the prospect of multi-party elections. Syria, like Fiji, has a timetable for change: elections are slotted for June, after a referendum on a new constitution in March.

But Mr Assad gave no indication that he would be willing to relinquish power – the goal that unites his otherwise disparate critics, secular and Islamist alike, in Syria, other Arab countries and the wider world. Meanwhile, protesters continue to die on the streets of Syria’s towns and cities – at least 5000 since March last year, according to the UN, though opposition groups say the real figure is closer to 7000. In his speech, Mr Assad described his regime’s response to the protests as striking ”with an iron fist against terrorists who have been brainwashed”.

Tyrants like Mr Assad – and lesser ones like Commodore Bainimarama, too – also exhibit symptoms of brainwashing, albeit self-inflicted. Unchecked power makes them increasingly oblivious to the gulf between their rhetoric and their conduct, which is perhaps why so few survive the demise of their regimes. they just don’t know when it’s time to go.

Teaching cannot be a temporary assignment

, ,

No Comments

Page optimized by WP Minify WordPress Plugin