'Interfering' Politicians Our Only Voice

It is entirely appropriate for our elected representatives to lead our legal system into a 21st century. I want fair, efficient and effective courts, suitably resourced and independent from Government in their judgements. Justice Phillips may not like the idea of politicians calling the shots (21/3), but then, what's the alternative? A greying network of old school chums operating through professional associations, private clubs and legal fraternity functions? Justice Phillips may have his voice heard at all the right dinner parties, but what of those of us who remain outside - yet firmly subject to - this system? Our Attorney-General is to be commended on bringing reform to this self-interested closed shop.

Lazy Journalism

The Sunday Age (20/3) is to be congratulated for finding a small business operator prepared to state that taxes are "eroding profits" and sending his business to the wall. Perhaps this same investigative flair could turn up a farmer who believes the current drought/flood/bushfire is "the worst in living memory"!

Student Unions

Michael Gilmour (Letters, 17/3), there are sound economic reasons for universities to aggregate the demand for "a whole range of services, be they child care, medical, legal, recreational", not least for efficiencies due to scale and specialisation.

The difficulty is in how this is best organised. The present tax-vote-subsidise model made sense at a time when universities were very small and homogenous communities. Now, with the explosive growth and diversity of students, the Government is right to look at new market-based approaches.

There are other factors at play too. If a few undergrad Arts students want a Fellini night or the jocks want a rugby field, they have options outside of uni that their parents didn't. But every student still benefits from O Week, bands and open functions like barbecues. As the students attending universities have changed, so have their expectations, and changes need to be mindful of that.

East Timor Dispute

There seems to be a groundswell of support for East Timor's position in the current dispute about oil-rich territory. However, suppose the island-state in question was instead, say, Singapore, whose wealth exceeds our own. Would we then support Australia "going in hard" with the negotiations, including selecting (to the extent allowed by law) the jurisdiction, tribunals and other legal mechanisms that puts Australia's interests in the best light? I suspect most of us would.

So if the only difference here is that East Timor is very poor while Singapore is very rich, then any concessions of billions of dollars to the East Timorese amounts to a form of aid. The question must be asked: is donating the oil to the East Timorese the best form of aid? Does this new, tiny country have the resources and expertise to extract maximum benefits from the territories?

Surely it would be more transparent for Australia to seek the best deal we can and then explicitly donate the billions of dollars to a UN trust fund, where it can be administered efficiently, competently and free from corruption by UN agencies and NGOs.

Yes, it's paternalistic and self-aggrandising; but it would likely lead to a better outcome.

Grand Prix Subsidy

The news that Team Williams had to sell a private jet to buy a second wind tunnel (The Age, 6/3) has eased my concerns about our taxes subsidising a millionaires' hobby.