//
archives

Government

This tag is associated with 2 posts

Landry Laughs at Budget Cut Hurt

Budget 2014

In Question time 26/05/14, Tanya Plibersek, asked a question about our electorate and Michelle Landry, Member for Capricornia. The question was as follows:

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, There are 8429 families currently receiving Family Tax Benefit B in the seat of Capricornia. How many families with children over the age of six in Capricornia will have their payments cut as a result of this budget? Why should these families suffer because of the Member for Capricornia’s failure to stand up against the Prime Minister’s cuts?

 

The PM didn’t respond to the implications of the cuts. In fact, he showed no empathy at all. He accused Labor of supporting welfare as “pseudo-generosity.” What he is saying is Labor gives to those in need, but is not genuine in that giving. That this ‘giving’ shouldn’t be taken seriously. He has clearly stated in response to a serious question about this electorate, that he finds welfare to the disadvantaged as ‘generosity’ and not a right.

The Member for Capricornia & LNP believe in a class divide. They clearly believe it will be OK for parents not to be able to afford a balanced healthy lunch for their school children. That they may need to make a decision between a child’s breakfast or lunch. They don’t understand the importance of being able to afford the right school supplies and uniforms. They don’t realise the pain a parent feels when they say, “No honey, I’m sorry, you can’t go on that excursion.” Or, I’d love for you to join a sport with your friends, or take singing lessons for the Eisteddfod, but I’m sorry you just can’t.”  Michelle Landry’s LNP sees the money that prevents this pain as an unnecessary generosity and not a right to the disadvantaged.

Landry’s LNP makes decisions from a background of privilege and they will never understand the hardship that the loss of even small amounts of money brings to some families.

The PM then told Labor they should cut the carbon tax, as it will save families $550 per year.

During the question, the camera panned to Ms. Landry. It showed Ms. Landry quite pleased with herself and she was laughing at the Prime Minister’s response to this very serious question.

 

landry laughing

 

Ms. Landry was laughing at harsh cuts that will see two parents both working as for example, shop assistants or a general labourer and an admin assistant, with two children, lose $4931 per year; or the jobseeker under 30, who will lose an incredible $6944 per year and have absolutely no income for six months. This person will not have any income for even a basic existence or the basic right to dignity. They will lose a lot more than $550, which is already compensated.

Will Ms. Landry be brave enough when she gets back from the rigours of parliament, to stand up in public and laugh in front of the people who are suffering these harsh cuts, or will she have the decency to stand up to this Government and for the people of Capricornia?

I have also sent this a a letter to the Editor of the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin in response to the question about the affect the budget will have on families in the electorate I live in.  I hope it is published so the people in the electorate of Capricornia who voted LNP, understand that they voted for Ms. Landry to bring pain and hardship to this electorate.

Should there be a Law against Politicians Lying? – Julian Burnside AO QC

abbott promisedThis is something that frustrates me. I find the deceit and lies of some politicians, so disrespectful to the people who have voted for them. I am sharing this article as it provides food for thought. Different to what Julian Burnside AO QC, is suggesting in his article linked below, I would like to see this dealt with in parliament. Where if it can be established that the Government is amending policy to the degree that it is considered enough to constitute this to be a deceptive to the people to win votes, then this should be contained in Double Dissolution rulings, OR the Senate should be bound to reject anything that does not consist of the same policy / funding etc., as promised to the nation during the election. Separate rulings would need to be made for a hung parliament. As we have recently experienced, this is very different to a majority rule and a lot more complex. Then, regardless of who is in power, what the people voted for, is actually what the people will get and not a cheaper, nastier version. It would help to give some reassurance to voters that their vote is indeed valued and ensure that parties cannot use lies and deceit to win votes and Govern under false pretences.  However, I am a just a Blogger who shares my thoughts. Julian Burnside AO QC knows a LOT more about the law than I ever possibly could and these are just my thoughts and no disrespect intended. However, it is all food for thought.

One thing is certain: if it is possible for a politician to be jailed for misleading the public, we will hear a lot more truth from them.  That has to be a good thing. (Julian Burnside)

You can read Julian Burnside’s article here – It’s worth a read. POLITICIANS WHO MISLEAD THE PUBLIC

Photo Courtesy of Mid North Coast Greens BlogSpot

Trish Corry

trishcorry

trishcorry

I love to discuss Australian Politics. My key areas of interest are Welfare, Disadvantage, emotions in the workplace, organisational behaviour, stigma, leadership, women, unionism. I am pro-worker and anti-conservativism/Liberalism. I am a proud member of the Australian Labor Party and you will find my blog posts written from a Laborist / Progressive Slant.

Personal Links

View Full Profile →

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 3,427 other followers

Follow me on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: