Abbott economy
George Hawthorne writes: Re. “The Australian economy under Abbott: a (rough) Crikey guide” (yesterday). In all the commentary on the economy and who is the best financial manager, the Coalition always points to John Howard as the guru. Maybe you can do an article on the reason behind their so-called success.
For one they sold Telstra which is now forgotten; they introduced a GST but did not follow through on the stated tax cuts; the great Costello advised on massive contributions to super which then disappeared in the GFC.
They put in middle class welfare to get re-elected; they have caused economic chaos with their crazy boat people policies which to this day are still costing a fortune and do not work. Anyone who looks at a map of Indonesia can see the problem.
The lazy way they approach economic policy will see the introduction of increased GST revenue, probably 15%. Colin Barnett has already started the ball rolling.
DIAC
Marilyn Shepherd writes: Re. “What Brendan O’Connor must do with Immigration Dept” (yesterday). Brendan O’Connor was the minister responsible for the retrospective brutal laws making every person who ever helps a refugee escape from persecution or death into one of the world’s worst form of criminal.
This finally kicked the judiciary into resisting such blatant breaches of the constitution and common law, left us with story after story of Indonesian children in adult jails without their parents being informed and then saw Roxon change mandatory sentencing by simple decree.
Currently 48 of the victimised children are suing us for illegal imprisonment and torture and at least another 132 will do so.
Meanwhile, not one ALP or moderate Coalition person will back down on the illegal brutality of Nauru and Manus Island and the media support the brutality because “it is a live hot potato issue”.
It’s not an issue: everyone has the right to seek asylum without punishment.
“Howard” might have been pretty weak and overhyped when you look closely at their “achievements”, but they had Murdoch handling their PR, writing popular history.
That dominant media institution, with their market share of edited views, weren’t going to do that sort of scrutiny to “Murdoch’s Limited News Party of choice”, because in doing so would draw negative publicity to and spoil their electoral chances – at least not ’til it came down to “Howard v Rudd” and their own credibility, when not even they could save Howard’s bacon.
Murdoch has also started “that ball rolling”.