Government approves Santos Barossa pipeline and sea dumping

The Australia Institute Media Release Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek’s Department has approved a…

If The Jackboots Actually Fit …

By Jane Salmon If The Jackboots Actually Fit … Why Does Labor Keep…

Distinctions Without Difference: The Security Council on Gaza…

The UN Security Council presents one of the great contradictions of power…

How the supermarkets lost their way in Oz

By Callen Sorensen Karklis Many Australians are heard saying that they’re feeling the…

Purgatorial Torments: Assange and the UK High Court

What is it about British justice that has a certain rankness to…

Why A Punch In The Face May Be…

Now I'm not one who believes in violence as a solution to…

Does God condone genocide?

By Bert Hetebry Stan Grant points out in his book The Queen is…

As Yemen enters tenth year of war, militarisation…

Oxfam Australia Media Release As Yemen enters its tenth year of war, its…

«
»
Facebook

Tag Archives: SPC-Ardmona

“We will decide what rights you have, and the circumstances under which you have them.”

Treasurer Joe Hockey has bluntly warned Australians that the days of governments saving businesses and jobs had passed, telling them, ”the age of entitlement is over, and the age of personal responsibility has begun”.

Mark Kenny “The Courier”, 4th February, 2014

So I guess, he’s also talking about this:

Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce billed taxpayers more than $4600 for ”official business” travel to attend rugby league games, including the 2012 State of Origin. The revelations come as the Abbott government hinted it will tighten rules on politicians’ entitlements.

Mr Joyce, who was given free tickets to watch the 2012 State of Origin and NRL finals in corporate boxes, claimed flights to Sydney, Comcars and overnight ”travel allowance”, costing taxpayers $4615. His spokeswoman told Fairfax Media that attending the matches was legitimate ”official business”.

The Sydney Morning Herald November 6, 2013

But what exactly does Hockey mean by the “age of entitlement”? In the lead-up to the election, he used to refer to what he called “middle class welfare”. And, of course, those people on the dole need to forget any ideas of entitlement.

So, basically the Government’s subtext seems to be: We don’t owe you anything – get over it!

And in the debates about company bail-outs, middle-class welfare and work-for-the-dole schemes that message might be lost. Yes, we’ve been told over and over again how the Liberals believe in “small government” but like so many words that are used we often overlook their actual meaning. Does small government mean reducing the number of MPs or reducing their staff and entitlements? Of course not, just the number of public servants, because public servants are just a burden. You want to speak to a public servant? The Age of Entitlement is over! I mean, trying ringing Centrelink, they don’t even answer the phone, so who’s going to notice that there are less?

But let’s just remind ourselves of what words mean because, as I said before, when we hear them over and over they can lose their meaning.

Entitlement: the fact of having a right to something

Oxford Dictionary

So, is Joe Hockey saying that the age of having a right to something is over?

Ok, maybe I’m just being tricky with language by pointing out the actual definition of what he’s saying. Maybe we shouldn’t presume that Hockey means what he’s saying. After all, that’d be rather unusual for a Minister in the Abbott government. (Although one of their backbenchers, Sharman Stone was rather forthright.)

But it’s also the concept of corporate and middle-class welfare that probably needs to be questioned. Again, consulting the dictionary:

Welfare

  1. the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.
  2. statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need.

When we talk about middle-class welfare, then we’re clearly either using the first definition, or we’re using an oxymoron. As I don’t think that many in or out of government wish to eliminate or reduce the health, happiness and fortunes of the middle class, let’s presume that it’s the second definition of welfare that we’re talking about. Therefore, if it’s the provision of the basic needs of people, then it can’t be given to those who have already provided these for themselves.

So, if we assume when people talk about middle-class welfare that they’re not talking about “welfare” at all, the use of the phrase suddenly becomes loaded. It implies that these people should not be receiving whatever handout, money, subsidy, tax relief being discussed, because it’s not welfare. We’re already being encouraged to think of it as government largesse and extravagant.

Economics is all about making decisions, of course, and all governments have a right to decide how money is spent. However, providing “welfare” is not the only role for a government in deciding who receives what.

When the government announced that it wouldn’t be supporting Holden or SPC-Ardmona, they were making a decision that has consequences. I’m quite prepared to have a discussion about whether it’s the right or wrong thing, but a decision like that can’t be defended with a glib, “the age of entitlement is over”. (With this government, I suspect that the age of reason is also over).

Similarly, just because a person is not on skid row is no reason to argue that they shouldn’t receive any assistance from the government for anything ever. We all pay taxes in some form or other – even if only the GST on what we purchase – and we have a right to expect something back. An entitlement, if you like. And as I said, who gets what and when they get it, is something that needs to be decided by government. Will the money be spent on a non-means tested baby bonus, or would the money be better used building another freeway or supporting the opera? Different people will have different priorities and will see some things as a waste. Whatever, people are entitled to expect that the government will be giving something back in return for our taxes. It’s a large part of what election campaigns are about. You know, that time when politicians sympathise about the cost of living pressures for working families.

Don’t expect anything from us is Joe’s message. Personal responsibility, he says. You’re not ‘entitled’ – unless we say that you are! And that includes what information we think that you should know and the broadband speed at which you know it.

And, by the way, if you’re earning less than $80,000, you’re paid too much!

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

That’s the thing about bias …

One of these is incapable of movement, one of them is incapable of thinking and one of them is a statue.

Quotes From Tony Abbott on SPC-Ardmona

“This government has a responsibility to stand up and fight for our domestic industries and the urgent processing of anti-dumping and safeguard action investigations should be the first step.”

“This is a government in chaos which is completely disregarding you at a time when they should be standing side by side with you and doing whatever they can to support you.”

Unfortunately, the quotes are from May last year, so he wasn’t actually talking about HIS government, but why should I let a little thing like that bother me?
And his tweet seems even more accurate now than when he made it:
“… at the end of the day, people are entitled to conclude that this government wants to bully its critics.”

It could be alleged that I’m biased against Tony Abbott, when I suggest that he is a two-faced liar, intent on returning us to the 1950’s – and I mean that in terms of wages and rights rather than social attitudes. However, I would argue that I have reached my conclusions after carefully considering all the evidence and that, for anyone to still support Abbott, they must clearly have a different agenda to the Liberal’s stated policies at the recent election.

But that’s the thing about bias. The biased person just doesn’t see it. I read a recent diatribe in the comments section where the person complained about aborigines – how they were handed so much which they just wasted and how fearful he was if he saw a “mob” of them in the street and how terrible it was that we weren’t allowed to have a WHITE channel (like NiTV) and, well, you couldn’t say things like this without people calling you a “racist”!

And so when Tony Abbott criticises the ABC, I find it hard to resist the temptation to argue that they only appear to be left wing, because of the MSM’s been so right wing.

However, I know that would be a mistake. To attempt to argue about bias is as futile as trying to pretend that Collingwood doesn’t get poorly treated by the umpires. (In the games I saw, there was not one free kick that the opposition deserved! But don’t take my word for it, ask any other Magpie member.)

The issue is not one of whether the ABC is biased or not. The issue is whether or not the government of the day is in a position to judge that bias. And whether there should be implicit threats to the ABC in the form of an inquiry into its “efficiency”. If anyone is seriously arguing that it’s just a coincidence that such a thing should be announced in the same week as Abbott’s attack, then they can join me at a Collingwood game and see people with a better grip on reality.

Assuming Abbott knew that an inquiry was to be announced and that it hadn’t just slipped his mind, did he not think that his comments might be construed in much the same way as you’d view someone saying: “I know where you live. And I have access to petrol!”

If the ABC starts announcing that we have to “Get Rid Of This Mob” and “We Need Shorten”, then it would be more reasonable to argue that it was overstepping the mark. But even then, the Coalition and various sections of the media cheer squad made strong arguments for the freedom of the press without government interference in recent years.

Is the reason that these principles now seem to be less important because we’re talking about the ABC? Or because we’re talking about a different government?

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button