Have you seen a dead person, been with them?

In 2016 there is a national conversation (in Australia) about voluntary euthanasia, as some refer to it, or assisted suicide, another phrase for a voluntary end to ones life. I have listened to the Andrew Denton PodCast series “Better of Dead”. I was listening intently, hunched up and very much interested and fascinated by the journey the podcast took. This was a new dimension to death and I was eager to learn all I could. The campaign to change Australian legislation to make euthanasia, or the practice of choosing to end ones life, legal has been waged for two decades and a bit. It looks like 2016 would be a significant milestone in the campaign. I would hear something similar voiced by the people and campaigners I spoke with. Inspired by the campaign I found myself in Portland, Oregon, to see and hear for myself how a place that has legalised assisted suicide imagines the rights of humans. A full 8 months later reflecting upon my journey I realise this campaign has given me a deeper understanding of the collective navigation towards a shared understanding of death.

For we don’t understand death. We ignore it. We shush people who raise the topic. We would rather death was not brought into the conversation. We are happy for death to be dealt with by experts in technical environments, such as hospitals and funeral parlours. The contemporary period is defined by the removal of death from our lives. Death has become hidden, and unfamiliar. If life is sacred, then death is profane.

Death however happens to us. It exists always as a future event in each individual person’s life. Death therefore ought to be planned for and prepared for. Within the continuum of death Voluntary Euthanasia constitutes one component; the death of a legal entity, a citizen, a tax payer and a law abiding individual. While the material apparatus and practice of taking one’s life is within the ability of an individual the law treats this as a form of crime – the taking of life is a crime. However in exceptional circumstances, such as extreme pain and suffering, it ought to be permissible for society to permit the individual to choose a form of exit and end to the pain and suffering. Those objecting to a law permitting voluntary euthanasia point to the possibility of the exploitation of this option and use the argument of the ‘slippery slope’. The ability of the state to allow for the voluntary Legal Death of a citizen is thus not a straight forward discussion in Australia.

Another component of the continuum of death is what is being referred to as ‘good death’. Chiefly a terminology popular within ‘end of life’ choices within the medical, hospital, ecosystem this phrase refers to the notion that death is largely cast in medical terms. Medical death also largely occurs in hospital where contemporary medicine is confronting the impacts of its practice of aggressively attacking the body to prolong life. Advocates raising the notion of good life are campaigning for doctors, patients and family to have a conversation before undertaking aggressive interventions that would not significantly prolong life but could instead render the person unable to lead a life outside of hospital, fed through tubes and connected to life support apparatus. The notion of good death is thus a way to reimagine the medical death of the person.

Framing the notions of Legal and Medical Death allows me to frame the category of the death of the person: where the death is the end of the social individual, the cultural practice of life. Thus in an individual’s death many things come to an end: the legal entity, the functioning body and the performing individual in society.

In coming to the construction of a location for a project involving students and colleagues I arrived then at the lack and thus the need that we have in society to reframe death. As designers we can do something about a lack – we can populate it with practice, services, products and a discourse. Developing a cultural discourse, we can invite people to enter into an engagement with the notions of death in cultural ways; with amusement, awe and laughter.

Death is a space that is the last event in the journey of life. It then has its own rites of passage, and traditional cultures have many sophisticated, curious and wonderful ways to engage with death. Death thus ought to be designed. Death as this designed practice ought to be framed as a discourse of desirable ways to proceed towards death and constitute the universe of possibilities to reimagine ways of dying. The celebration surrounding the last phase of a life can be so much more than a consumption event, such as the bucket list. It can be the end of consumption too and a repudiation of the mean and the meaningless in the shallows of life.

The proscription of death, and the consignment of the journey towards death, the experience of dying, to a technical facility such as the hospital, a body repair shop, robs society of its past, its ability to enrich social discourse and its ability to build resilience. The banishment of dying from our homes has some horrific consequences in that most people die unhappy and away from their loves ones. People die in horrible ways. We can change this.


(Knight Meets Death, in Seventh Seal by Ingmar Bergman)

The End studio took a group of design students and teachers on a journey to dismantle death and to put it back together in interesting ways. The goal in this enterprise has always been to be able to take the design outcomes to others who deal with people and families navigating mortality and death. It had been possible of us to construct the studio so that it was embedded within the medical facilities to include experts who deal with keeping people alive. We chose to stay outside of this ecosystem – for a while – so we could create a space that was not about life, where death is the unacceptable, but about dying as a desirable and normal practice.

We constructed dying as a long period. Not just the moments, days and weeks before death and after death. But as a phase that occurs after the end of the working life. So in our view dying commences when you stop working and may extend to decades. Dying in this ways is reframed as something that can be made meaningful and full, rather than empty. We imagine we can speak about death not just with those dying soon, but also with people, such as children, who will die eventually. We can speak of dying as a place where we do things differently, to imagine our lives in ways different from the way we imagined it before we entered the world of work. We can recast dying as the place where we savour. Where we pause to taste, smell and touch. Where we don’t take, but give. Its the location of the poetic phase of our lives.

To enrich ways of dealing with this tremendously important aspect of being alive we imagine we focus not about how we look but upon how funny we are. The attractive person is one who is generous, kind and amusing. We become children and in this we close the loop. Gently and with grace.


We make time to be with a dying person in our homes. We hold them, get them to hold our beer as we munch the pizza, stroke their skin and make them normal. We will have seen many dead people and would be richer for it.


Acknowledging others who came along on this journey.

  1. Haley West: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-28/hearse-stolen-with-body-inside-nsw-blue-mountains/5924708
  2. Libby Molony: http://www.theswitchreport.com.au/people/natural-approach-death-interview-libby-moloney-natural-grace/
  3. Rebecca Bartel: http://www.achr.org.au
  4. Tony Yap: http://www.tonyyapcompany.com
  5. Swathi Madike
  6. Ian Gray: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/retiring-coroner-ian-gray-says-victorian-coroners-court-should-be-more-transparent/news-story/9939a32cc1d788576533562d02d471e1


This is a great piece. I am looking at this as – the tide is turning folks. I am looking to achieve my prediction of a Clinton landslide. #clintonlandslide

Opinion | I don’t like Hillary Clinton or the Democratic Party. I’m voting for them anyway. – The Washington Post


How much should education cost

Walgett spends $44,692 per student, with $43,501 coming from the federal and state government to support the school’s extra needs. By comparison, elite Sydney Grammar spends $40,982 per student, with $3617 coming from public funding. – source: Liberals trigger storm over private school funding, Australian, STEFANIE BALOGH, 12:00AM September 28, 2016

On Monday on #QandA the Education Minister was precise and stated the problem facing every education minister in this country. As the Australian put it:

Education Minister Simon Birmingham’s concession that some of the nation’s wealthiest private schools are “over-funded” and could lose money has ignited a fresh front in the decades-old ­political firestorm over education spending.

In the same Australian article the Grattan Institute’s Peter Goss said it well:

The Grattan Institute’s school education program director Peter Goss said Senator Birmingham “is to be absolutely commended for calling out the fact that some schools are over-funded relative to their need. That means we are spending dollars and extra dollars each year in places that don’t need it, and that is preventing us from spending it in places that do need it’’. “This must change,’’ he said. “This is about the principles of needs-based funding — arguments about hit lists of private schools are purely self-serving.’’

“This has been a no-go area for far too long. It is fantastic that Minister Birmingham is showing signs of taking it on.’’

School Funding has for years been portrayed as an intractable problem. So the Education Minister is keen to do something about it.

Senator Birmingham said he would not buckle in the face of “scaremongering” from Labor about a schools “hit list” and that he was determined to end the inequalities between states and school sectors. – Revealed: the nation’s most ‘over-funded’ schools, Matthew Knott, SEPTEMBER 28 2016 – 8:38PM, The Sydney Morning Herald

Here is a great Video about the Gonski model that proposed a way forward to resolve this problem.

I was listening to RN (@patskarvelas) and the topic of schools funding came up. Stimulated and curious I decided to have a look.

What is the current situation with schools funding?

First I read the two articles that deal with the comments made on Q&A. I then did a bit of rough research. This involved:

  1. Selecting a set of schools to study. I decided to take up two schools from the newspaper article and added three others – two schools I was familiar with and one school in Melbourne that has a reputation for academic excellence ( and for raising house prices in its school zone)
  2. I then downloaded the annual reports for these 5 schools. And extracted two figures from the report: Income (Government and other) and number of students.
  3. I have also used the figures mentioned in the newspaper article (for Sydney Grammar and Walgett) – expenditure by school per student. There was a discrepancy in the figures for Walgett – so I made two lines and thus kept both figures. The ones quoted in the newspaper and the ones in the annual report. I was using the K-12 figures – both primary and high school.
  4. I then made a simple excel spreadsheet you see below.



Note: The dataI used for the Walgett School is the one mentioned in this newspaper article. Its possible this is a unique school and potentially a special instance of funding.

Its possible that such a spread sheet can be made up – with more accurate figures. It is entirely possible that research such as this may have been conducted by Gonski/ The Grattan Institute and even by the Education Minister’s office. Purely in terms of Government expenditure – which the Minister seemed to be pointing at – it costs roughly 10 to 12 thousand $ a year to educate a single student in the Public-Ecosystem. On the other side the Federal government has to spend 2.1 billion a year on funding private schools.

This simple chart can be used alongside some key findings of educational research. It can also be used alongside key tropes to verify their validity.  That said a few aspects of the current debate are listed below.

  1. School academic performance is linked to postcodes.
  2. Future Employment outcomes are determined by the school the student graduated from.
  3. The Government should fund all students independent of their economic status.

Some aspects of the current debate are unique to the Australian context – such as preserving state funding for Private schools. Its quite common for state funding outside of Australia to be focussed only upon state schools.

How Much Does Education in Australia Cost?

To look at this next question I started with the ABS data on school going population in Australia.

Overall, government schools continued to be the major provider of school education in Australia in 2015, with 2,445,130 students (65.2% of all students) attending, while 1,305,843, students (34.8% of all students) attended non-government schools. Source Australian Bureau of Statistics (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4221.0)

From my previous table and text I have two figures: The federal Government spends 2.1 Billion on education, and the rough cost of per student education in a public school is 12,000 $/year. Here is what I came up with:

  • Current State Funding Total 29,341,560,000
  • Federal Funding to Private Schools Total 2,100,000,000
  • Total Government Funding (State plus Federal) 31,441,560,000

The Federal Government is not a big player in the schools funding/ economic ecosystem. If they were to pull the money they spend on private schools and put that into the state system each student would get an additional 900$ – making the individual student spend 12900. For Balwyn High School this would mean an additional income of 1.8 million. This would come at a loss of 4 million to Sydney Grammar.

Note: Using the Federal Funding of 2.1 billion for private schools, for a student population of 1,305,843 – we arrive at an average figure (all students receiving the same level of funding)of Federal Government Funding of 1608$. This is half the quoted figure for Sydney Grammar – and its possible there is a formula that the Government uses to determine variable funding for different private schools.

How to think about Funding

This was an article in the Age today: “More than 150 private schools over-funded by hundreds of millions of dollars each year” by Matthew Knott and Fergus Hunter LINK.

An earlier article has a list of schools overfunded: Revealed: the nation’s most ‘over-funded’ schools, by Matthew Knott

There are a few issues at stake here, some questions and some narratives:

  1. How is the funding for an individual school determined? Therefore how have some of these schools ended up with such high levels of funding.
  2. My earlier analysis was focussed upon ‘taxpayer’s children’ – that is the government money is the portion of tax paid by the individual. This is the hypothesis that the way to fund private schools could use a rule that specified a ‘rate of funding’ attached to a student – such as 12,000$ per year. This funding then would move with the student to any school they wished to go to – a form of portable funding. So a fee of 32,000$ a year in a school could be imagined to comprise two components – the state fee support of  12,000 and a direct school fee for the balance owed – which would be 20,000 in this example.
  3. Re the phrase “No school worse off”: This rule could be interpreted as a notion of equity – currently some schools are worse off and this needs to be fixed. That all schools get funded by the Government to the same amount.
  4. Re How do elite private schools maximise their income from their three sources of funding – fees, Government subsidies, philanthropy/ endowments? There exists a form of private school funding – such as in the US – that has an established mechanism to draw large amounts of funding to exclusive schools. Australian Private schools that adopt these practices would be modernising their income portfolios and moving to become more resilient and potentially even more well funded. Government funding is easy money and holds back innovation.
  5. Is it correct that federal funding go to private schools and state funding look after public schools? This is a historical anomaly – and needs to be revisited. For income tax that individuals pay is collected by the federal government and no portion of this comes back to benefit the family that sends their child to a public school.
  6. How can an education minister change an entrenched system? The solutions are clear but the political path to an equitable future faces many hurdles.
  7. Public Schools adhere to the principle that schooling is a human right – like the air we breathe its free. Should all schooling be free – and paid for from the tax income, plus the tax on the “high net individuals” and corporations that are not paying any tax?
  8. Should a sovereign fund be established to provide for free schooling?

Till the recent voicing of the notion of ‘over-funding’ it has not been possible to have a national conversation about the future of schools funding.


I have used an old figure of 2.1 Billion – as what the federal government spends on private schools. Recent articles have used much higher figures – I am planning to speak with school principals to correct my figures in the coming weeks and months.

Further Reading

Gonski Report – Download here.

Commentary here.

What is the Gonski Report.


My children went to/is in state schools. I am very happy with their schooling experience. I was prompted to write this – to have this conversation with them – partly to explain how government works in this case in dealing with service provision for its citizens. This information would be useful to them in the event one of them becomes the premier or prime minister.

I write this post – and will keep making additions and edits over the course of time – as a primer for people who may want to read a discussion about school funding.




Loved the Rosie Project

I finished the Rosie Project last night. It was 10.44 PM when I got up from the yellow Ikea reading chair. I had begun the read at 4.30 AM after downloading it on Borrow Box using my local Darebin library membership. I had chosen to download the e-AudioBook version of the book. At the back of my mind was the project – stuff my brain with specific diction – which I researched and did not follow up. This was a project to extend my diction in many different directions. I can Speak English in a few differed ways – multiple Indian ways, but also can do a smattering of Japanese-English, Singlish. Listening to an eAudio book would insert a substantial amount of audio content into my brain – and would be stored there till I accessed it. This book would no doubt be spoken of in the Melbourne-Educated voice. This is a form of hybrid intonation that would contain both the Urban-metropolitan Australian nuances, plus the standard university educated minimisation of local intonations. This voice would be fitting in to a standard-english mode stripped off the colloquial local and socialised intonations. Not posh – just stripped back and pickled. With delicious overtones of the American ‘a’ intoned sporadically for effect, and the conscious attempt at the rounded ‘o’ to denote every so often – responding to the need to have a confusing impact upon the listener.

The usage of the word ‘bastard’ is a case in example. It can be deployed in multiple ways. Its a great word that can be used as a ‘boy hug’ – “you bastard” slowly issuing from the mouth of a colleague is a great way to say “I fucking love you mate”. The ‘a’ in affection is rounded – the flattened ‘a’ in this word would confuse the listener: is this is a quote from a film? For effect the ‘b’ can be used as a projectile, with popping lips.

I am Soumitri of South Indian Extraction, height 167 and BMI 23.7. Average on all scores and statistically normal. No special distinguishing features. Balding, occasionally vegetarian, non-smoker, monogamous, Sporadic quantified-selfer, User of multiple scheduling apps (desultorily). Intellectually I am prone to binge projects – learn hebrew (not all that well), run (reasonably well – though not pushing the limit, desultory). I checked a few times, doing a mental assessment, to see if I figured on the Autism scale. I am hopeless in social gatherings. I can get worked up after social events. I like to work alone. I do not want to play the academic grants game. I would rather do interesting research that is not beholden to money making. Am I like Don (the main chracter in the book). There is a lot to like in Don.


Very early into the reading of the book (I should have said into the listening) I had an impulse that I have had often with authors – my particular and very special favourites being Andrea Camilleri and Shane Maloney. I would love to have coffee with this author. I stopped the audio just as Don was putting the lobster into the freezer. I went and had a look at Graeme Simsion. Then I had a read of a few reviews. There was a lot to like (“Warm-hearted and perfectly pitched, with profound themes that are worn lightly, this very enjoyable read promises to put Don Tillman on the comic literary map somewhere between Mr Pooter and Adrian Mole. Through his battles to understand and empathise with other humans, Don teaches us to see the funny side of our own often incomprehensible behaviour – and to embrace the differently abled.”) and not like (“The Rosie Project is 1930s screwball comedy updated for 2013.”) in the reviews.

I am prone to preferring the notion of affection in my engagement with literary charatecres of this genre.

I loved the book. I cried at many points. I stayed with the book. I stand with the voice of the narrator. I finished the book in a day.

If you want your treat in audio this is a gorgeous morsel.

I am next going to have a look at/ a listen of:

“The Rosie Effect – the book’s sequel, released last September, about the birth of the professor’s child with Rosie – was recently named by Bill Gates as one of his five favourite reads of 2014.”

Ray Matthews, 75, runs 75 marathons in 75 days.

So I am a failure. My app says I have to run 10.5 kms today. It’s 8 AM and I am off to work. Have not run yet. But now that I am thoroughly shamed -I aim to do better and run this evening:



Adorables or Deplorables?

I listened to NPR politics (yes a fan) podcast on my way to work today. Clinton’s use of the phrase – Basket of Deplorables was discussed and that it was now viral as #basketofdeplorables. What prompted this post was a comment by @domenicoNPR that he had posted a basket of puppies as #basketofadorables. So I headed off to twitter to check this out. I saw the basket of puppies – but then I came across a conspiracy theory that twitter was forcefully converting #basketofdeplorables into #basketofadorables – but isn’t this just autocorrect? Just saying.

#nprpolitics @samsanders

The other issue was the discussion around the #plebiscite. I have been tracking on this – and its already begun the polarisation and the hate speech – and then the phrases and contexts got conflated. #basketofdeplorables?

Signing off with a #basketofadorables