TBC'
?? I'm having serious difficulty in working out the gist in your post.
Forgive me if I've got it wrong. I should have said like I've said so many times now that I advocate No-Military national Service.
I have no intention of sending untrained kids into a battlefield. My intention is to ready them for life with a sense of responsibility, something that has gone wayside since Whitlam.

A non-military form of national gung-ho?

My, impressive stuff indie.

What, pray tell, might this involve?

Being a chaplain in a school?

Delivery groceries for Granny Scroggins on a push bike?

Polishing police cars?

Guarding villains instead of paying prison guards?

I know, digging by hand the much awaited Bradfield Scheme?

But an improved one, from the Kimberley via Alice to Melbourne, with an off shoot to green the Nullabor and people it with refugess from Palestine? That way we get to keep all the camels out there too.

GOOD IDEA Indie, good idea.

I suggest you get straight onto Tony Abbott and offer to gift him your splendid Vision Splendid.

And I think I can contribute to this Idea Stream too. To Hell with the Pacific Highway and all that wasted energy.

A hundred years of National Service could see a canal from Melb to Cairns, with sailing barges carrying the national output hither and thither, not sail sailing barges but Green Energy sailing barges, powered by the sun, with back-up Nat Servo rowers.

Just think, no more Lay Down Sally moments in our Olympic rowing teams with this sort of training on tap

TBC what have you been smoking today ?

A 3 month service commitment would not go astray. It could consist of life skills, early morning rises polished boots, made beds, shower and shave in 4 minutes, Just plain discipline and respect, What kids are badly lacking.

579,
by extending it to 6 months they might acquire the mentality to say thank you for a meal.
I maintain 2 years is the optimum, it's been proven in other countries. Youth violence for example ceases to translate into adult violence in a National Service environment.

TBC,

I’m not kidding at all.

It is unfair of you to call Peter Garrett a “pet drone” of Julia Gillard. He seems to be to me a decent person, who was scapegoated over the insulation issue.

He raised the problems at the time.
(http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/garrett-the-fall-guy-in-rudds-roofing-fiasco/story-e6frg6zo-1225857626035

The rate of insulation-related house fires actually fell under his watch. (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2010/10/21/did-peter-garrett-get-it-right-after-all/)

Employers have to take responsibility when they break the law. In one case, the employer pleaded guilty.
(http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/employers-in-batts-case-plead-guilty/story-e6frg6nf-1225922985498)

The extension of the chaplaincy program to include secular welfare workers can hardly be characterised as increasing the amount of Christianity in schools. I don’t believe the federal government should be funding chaplains, but I do not object to their presence in schools any more than I object to their presence in the military, hospitals or prisons.

The Victorian parent bodies do not support chaplains or school fees.

The weakness of the AEU is just the weakness of the members, who once fought for education but who now roll over all the time. Principals too are less able than 30 years ago when they were perfectly competent to run their schools without the power to hire and fire.

The point of review of funding for schooling is not to “upset” private schools but to propose a rational funding model for schooling. That’s why the title includes “schooling”, not “schools” – an obvious point missed by most commentators.

It’s not too late for the AEU to wake up and lobby for the case it should have made a year ago.