So we have a population too small to support a Symphony Orchestra according to the erudite James Strong, former CEO of Qantas.
Tasmania joined the Federation at the turn of the last century a full partner with the other states with its equal representation in the then states’ house, the Senate.
Was it suggested at any time in the nation’s travails that Tasmania contribute any less in treasure or lives.
When national service was used to rasie troops fpor Vietnam was Tasmania excluded as a small state from its young men being compelled in the national interest. Will that contribution be excluded if it is again seen as in the national interest?
When we lose the State ‘right’ to play a full part in the nation’s cultural development what will follow. Narrow national highways, built to a lesser standard, after all there are fewer Tasmanians. A decrease in social welfare payment – after all there are fewer if only one head is counted.
Perhaps a university that is the branch of another – after all where will they find the students with so few Tasmanians. Are their brains smaller, perhaps sub-human and so unable to enjoy the richness of a full symphonia.
I know … let’s save the cost of the whole exercise and evacuate, using those three Spirits and run it as a green power station.
How did Strong manage Qantas … did he close those routes that fell below the return on investment median, or work to build the business?
How did this Strong manage Qantas – did he buy smaller planes and raise the fares when he was faced with competition. Did he close those routes that fell below the return on investment median or work to build the business?
Did Qantas do anything of a community nature or not entirely for profit?
Do Tasmanians contribute less to the nation economically. As I understand it our contribution per capita is above the national average. Are our tax rates lower?
Whilst it may be right to suggest that a state must carry its own weight in some areas and we seem to keep abreast in policing and equal some other states in the cost of providing health services, within a Federation some distribution of resource is necessary in the national interest.
Whilst I don’t have the figures of cost and return of all the symphony orchestras and so am unable to compare them per capita, the revelation that last year the TSO was ‘profitable’ shows that the basic economic premise has been met in one year. What about the others? What does the business plan project? Will a chamber orchestra return the same or the costs be lower and it also less popular.
We have seen the State willing to carry III because it contributes, or will contribute, more to the economy.
We will now see if we are to be treated as rural in the Greek, to be included as part of Victoria or be seen as a full partner in this Commonwealth.
PS:Adelaide with a population of over a million is also proposed for a downgrade, the goal is too high for Tasmania to achieve unless the number of heads is doubled.
phill Parsons is not completely tone deaf, his strengths are in hearing the sounds of cant and hypocrisy when the screw is turned for the 66 billion dollar man.