Photo: Cory Bernardi showing what normal looks like!

“They have got a policy that will increase the cost of housing for all Australians, for those people who own a home and for those people who would like to get into the housing market through their negative gearing policy,” Kelly O’Dwyer told us.

Unfortunately this seemed to contradict Mr Turnbull’s statement that should Labor’s negative gearing proposals get through, not only would lamb roasts cost $100 and Whyalla be wiped off the face of the map, but when we poor homeowners went to get a valuation from the bank so that we could borrow to go on holiday we’ll suddenly find that no bank will lend to us and we wouldn’t be able to afford it, so there’ll be no holidays and then SeaWorld on the Gold Coast will have to shut down. That may not be exactly what he said. I’m still confused about Scott Morrison suggesting that a house will be like a new car where as soon as we put the key in the lock, it’ll immediately lose value.

When questioned, Mr Turnbull suggested that when Ms. O’Dwyer spoke of “the cost of housing for all Australians, for those people who own a home and for those people who would like to get into the housing” she was only referring to new housing which is such a small section of the market that it’s not worth thinking about.

Later, the Assistant Treasurer did clarify. Yes, when she said that it would increase the cost of housing she merely meant the cost of new housing and when she said “all Australians” she, of course wasn’t refering to the vast majority. She was merely refering to a handful of “all Australians” for whom the cost of housing would rise. In fact, she told us, Mr Turnbull was absolutely right, as was she, and it was only the fact that what she said was a little confusing owing to the fact that it wasn’t edited as it went live to air and, as such, it was a case of people paying too much attention to what she actually said and not what she was thinking which was exactly the same as whatever Malcolm had said.

So, with that cleared up and the media left with egg on their faces over trying to suggest that one person saying prices would go up and the other saying they’d go down was in any way a contradiction, I guess the next question is what did Mr Turnbull mean when he said that this would put pressure on “an already fragile housing market”? If the market’s “fragile”, then surely it wouldn’t be a good idea to invest in it. Is the PM warning us not to invest in housing? Won’t this also put downward pressure on house prices?

I think that he needs to be questioned on why he believes the housing market is so fragile and whether it’s because of his government’s inability to manage the economy or the result of too many investors ready to pull out of the market now that the share market has entered “bear” terroritory and there are so many opportunities for bargains. Or is it the fact that the average wage growth isn’t keeping pace with inflation?

Whatever, contradictory statements have been the Liberal’s bread and butter lately.

You may have heard the exchange between Bill Shorten and Boring Cernardi

During Bill Shorten’s press conference, Bernardi walks past and the following exchange takes place:

Bernardi: At least, I’m honest, Bill. You’re a fraud!
Shorten: At least I’m not a homophobe.

Later Bernardi says that “it’s disappointing someone seeking to be PM resorts to name calling when confronted with a different policy view”.

He added: “What I’m critical of is that those of a differing opinion, do not engage in the merits or the facts or otherwise of the debate,” he went on, “What they resort to is name calling.”

So calling someone a “fraud” is quite ok and engaging in the “merits or the facts or the otherwise (?) of the debate”. However, let’s ignore that for a second and look at what else Senator Bernardi considers a reasonable viewpoint.

The Safe Schools Program, according to the Senator, is trying to “indoctrinate children into a Marxist agenda of cultural relativism.”

I guess that fits into the “otherwise” category because it doesn’t fit into the “facts” or “merits” of the debate.

Anyway, it seems that Bernardi believes that schools shouldn’t be places of “indoctrination”. I guess that’s why he protested when Abbott insisted that money was spent on chaplains and not secular workers.

Oh wait, he didn’t! I wonder why!

Anyway, I heard the Senator telling us that the trouble was that the left resorted to name calling and just wanted to shut down discussion, and that stopped him from pointing out how wrong it was to have young people discussing things such as same sex attraction and that schools shouldn’t be discussing it. Cory went on to tell us that he’d discussed the matter with LGBTI youth and many of them were right behind him.

He also tried to suggest that most schools weren’t using the Safe Schools program, so therefore it was a failure. Ignoring for a moment that it’s only in the process of being rolled out so many schools haven’t actually had the opportunity to sign up yet, I wonder if he’d apply the same logic to the chaplaincy program.

Ok, ok, I know. Bernardi isn’t typical of the Liberal Party and most of them would find his views ridiculous. That’s why it’s so strange that Turnbull felt it necessary to acquience to his demand for an investigation into the Safe Schools Program. And, in spite of everything, he’s still likely to have the number 1 spot on the Liberal Senate ticket in South Australia.

Still I have more important things to worry about than the strangest senator since Caligula appointed his horse to the senate.

I mean, my house could drop in value if Bill Shorten gets in and then all sorts of riffraff will be buying houses because they’ll be cheaper than a packet of cigarettes.