Despite having repeatedly shown appalling judgement in her political career – mistakenly locking up Cornelia Rau and overturning deportation orders to grant Francesco Madafferi a visa for example – Amanda Vanstone is the go to girl to represent the “moderate” Liberals in the media.
As she blankets all news sources with her ABC radio program, her columns in the 9 newspapers, and regular TV panel appearances on the ABC and elsewhere, we are supposed to accept her as some sort of wise counsellor sharing her astute insights.
This is the woman who, as a member of Abbott’s National Commission of Audit, advised Hockey on the disastrous 2014 budget.
At the time, she said “We do have a long term budgetary problem and we need to fix it.”
Instead of tackling the unsustainable tax concessions introduced by her and her colleagues in the Howard government, Amanda’s approach to doing this was to slash the public service, privatise assets and outsource services, cut welfare payments, make people pay to see a GP, drastically increase the cost of getting a university education, and scale back government industry and innovation programs. Charities, NFPs and NGOs had their funding slashed.
So imagine my surprise on reading her headline in Sunday’s SMH, “Labor’s plans will hurt many people who aren’t rich at all.”
Now that’s rich coming from you Amanda.
Ms Vanstone goes on to bemoan the fate of these people “who aren’t rich at all” if Labor should win office.
Those people who are struggling on $90,000 a year, earning $23,000 more than the average wage, will apparently be slightly worse off under Labor’s plan.
“Prime Minister Scott Morrison understands they need a break. They’re working hard to get ahead and just need some support,” writes an anguished Amanda. “You make a fairer society by helping people move permanently up the ladder.”
Amanda argues that you do this by helping people who can save a bit of money to invest in a small rental property. If they can’t reduce their tax through negative gearing then “you leave gains in the property market as the exclusive privilege of those who are rich enough to pay nearly or all the purchase price.”
Okay. But what about the people who can’t “save a bit of money”? What about those that can’t even afford to rent a home for themselves let alone buy a “small rental property”? How do we help with their “upward mobility”?
Amanda then moves on to the excess franking credit policy saying Labor thinks everyone with shares is rich.
“They just seem to have no idea how many people on pensions or part pensions have a few shares.”
Amanda seems to have no idea that pensioners and part-pensioners are exempt from the change, and to be ineligible for a part-pension, one must have reasonable income and/or assets.
Not to be left out of the madness about electric vehicles, Amanda warns that Labor hasn’t told us who they are “going to hit”.
“Some might say the faster we move to electric vehicles the better. Not the people who have just bought a new non-electric car. Not the people who make a living selling petrol.”
I’m not sure what Amanda doesn’t understand about 50% and, as it was the Coalition’s expectation too, one would assume they felt the market could sort that out.
“If you’re thinking of voting Labor ask them, when government revenue from fuel excise drops dramatically, how will they make up the shortfall? There’s only two ways – you pay more tax or services are cut. It’s that simple.”
Oh Amanda, I think I would rather ask that question of the Coalition who, according to you, will have $387 billion less to “make up the shortfall”. What services will they cut?
And she rounds off with a cracker, telling us that many of the Labor team “don’t like or trust their own leader.”
“After all, his own team have seen him ruthlessly dispose of leaders.”
Short-term memory loss, Amanda?
[textblock style=”7″]
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!
[/textblock]
