Well, that was a poised performance from Hockey on Q&A. Some sensible answers, and it was good to hear more re: health-related concessions and tertiary education funding that I wasnt fully informed about. There are SOME good initiatives in this budget. What the questions failed to explore adequately was the ideology of funding these initiatives at the expense of the vulnerable. ALL of the analysis Ive seen shows that the marginal (i.e. % of household income) impact of this budget is far greater on low income earners and those (legitimately) dependent on welfare than on high income earners. (NB: Im less concerned about the changes to Newstart than I was--this could well prove to be a really effective social reform.) And the total lack of corporate / company contribution to this fiscal recovery (which I still dont consider to be nearly as dire as surplus-obsessed types believe) wasnt touched at all. In a word: regression. The Libs clearly believe in tax reform that favours the wealthy, and arent being held accountable for the very clear inequity it creates. (In fact, Hockey was allowed to get away with many references to the equity of his budget.) Also, dont get me started on the environment (which has been successfully subtracted from political discourse in Australia at the moment), foreign aid (if we have to borrow money to stop thousands of deaths among people with no capacity to borrow money themselves, so be it!) and the ABC (which should have its charter expanded by 1% to represent the efficiency gains its re-invested into new media). Summary: Im still very grrrrrrrr, but Hockeys candour was commendable (his compassionless jaw-clenching less so; he really seems to dislike plebs) and Im now slightly hopeful that Australia might be able survive his savagery without descending into Pan Am straightaway.
Posted on: Mon, 19 May 2014 13:14:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015