Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Please explain Prime Minister
Dear Editor,
A reasonable person would accept that some superannuation concessions were generous to those who could afford to take advantage of them and would accept that changes are justified. However, to apply changes to the rules retrospectively is, by any measure, grossly unfair and then to claim there is no retrospectivity is simply stupid.
Unfortunately, Turnbull appears to be making the same mistakes as Abbott and Gillard by breaking a promise and then failing to accept that he has done so.
Turnbull promised that any changes to the tax system would be “fair” but there is nothing fair about moving the goal posts after the kick has been taken. That’s what he has done with the lifetime contribution limit aspect of the superannuation changes. You can’t change the law in May 2016 and make it effective from 2007 and deny it is not retrospective.
Many people have made financial and life decisions, in good faith, based on the tax rules at the time and now, for many, their carefully made plans have been thrown into chaos.
Superannuation is a complex issue and it is clear that the impact of the policy has been poorly considered and the full implications of the changes have not been thought through. This is evidenced by comments by Julie Bishop regarding “unintentional consequences” and Arthur Sinodenus suggesting that there will need to be consultation after the election. There is also confusion about ‘defined’ pensions.
To say that only 4 per cent of people will be affected is absolute rubbish. What started as a trickle of unease after the budget has turned into a flood of concern and will reach a tsunami by the election as more people understand that they will be financially impacted. And it is not just those who are already retired that will be affected.
These changes are bad politics for two main reasons;
Firstly, Turnbull has already broken a promise and denied that he has done so.
Secondly, as we have a full senate election, thinking voters, and especially those adversely affected by the superannuation changes, will be seeking the views of senate candidates on the superannuation changes and especially the retroactive provisions and if Turnbull is re-elected, he may well find that he is dealing with a more hostile senate than he was previously.
The changes are also bad economics. Treasurer Morrison claims (Insiders, May 8) that “household consumption is what is driving our economy”. Superannuants and self-funded retirees are significant contributors to that spending and a sure way to crash consumer confidence is to create uncertainty. And this is exactly what the budget announcements (especially the retroactive aspects) have done. People could well curtail spending because they simply don’t know what the impact will be. Bad outcome!
Further, superannuants and self-funded retirees are not impacting on the “unsustainable trajectory” of the aged pension as Finance Minister Cormann constantly claims. Isn’t that a good economic outcome? Isn’t it a good thing that the more people who can self-fund their retirement, the better for the long term economic outlook?
Despite their brave face and downplaying on this matter, the government knows that it has seriously underestimated the hostility that these changes have caused and they need to understand that this a major election issue.
Make changes but make them fair and not retroactive. Turnbull needs to step back, at least from the retroactive changes and, along with others including Morrison, Cormann and Sinodinos, stop claiming that the changes are not retrospective.
Voters of the Yass district have not been well served by either the ALP or the Coalition because of our ‘safe’ seat status. But the ground has shifted with Eden-Monaro on a narrow 2.9 per cent margin.
To win the election, the government will need to hold Eden-Monaro. I invite the Prime Minister to come to Yass and explain why the changes to superannuation are not ‘retrospective and while he is here he might like to make a meaningful announcement on infrastructure (i.e the Barton Highway).
There has never been a better time to be a voter in the Yass District.
Greg Minahan
Yass.
Barton Highway a hot election issue
Dear Editor,
I see that Peter Hendy is announcing $35 million in funding for the Barton Highway.
Just how dumb do these politicians think we are? In 2013, Angus Taylor campaigned on a slogan of; “You have to vote for me. I am the only one who will get the Barton Highway duplicated”. The result? $350,000 for yet another report, which he suppressed for nearly a year because it said that the highway could not be duplicated at this time.
Prior to the 2015 State election, Pru Goward stood on the highway with Mr ‘do nothing’ Taylor and announced $14 million for improvements to the highway. When asked about locations, specifications and costings, Ms Goward was unable to answer. The result? Nothing happened.
Now, Mr Hendy is promising $35 million, for what? Where? And when? His polling must be bad.
The only real improvement to the highway occurred after the 2013 election when the Labor candidate, David Grant was able to secure nearly $40 million in funding to eliminate black spots at Gounyan and Capricorn. The other improvements at McIntosh Circuit and Kaveneys Road were the result of two private citizens, surveying the most dangerous spots in 2012, and lobbying the then RTA for funding, which trickled out over the next five years.
The Barton will only be duplicated when the NSW government places it at, or near, the top of its priorities when bidding for funding from Infrastructure Australia. Given the track record of Ms Goward and Duncan Gay so far, I am not very optimistic.
Mr Hendy, we do not want bandaids, we want the highway duplicated.
John Gelling
Murrumbateman.
Dear Editor,
Well, here we are again folks. The Libs are promising us $50 million to upgrade the Barton Highway. We who use the Barton have had enough of upgrades and bandaids. There is only one acceptable improvement that can be made for a safer Barton and that is full duplication. We’ve been expecting full duplication for over 40 years, and this Liberal party promise is the sort of cheap and dirty, vote buying evasion we’ve become used to.
If Peter Hendy wants to claw a few votes back from his disenchanted electorate, his best chance is an unambiguous promise of a fully duplicated Barton Highway from Canberra out to the Hume with work to start before the election after this one.
The people of the Yass Valley have waited too long.
John Warner
Murrumbateman.
Council can’t outsource to a crowdsource
Dear Editor,
I was very pleased to see council match the funds raised by the hardworking Barton Highway Community Action Group but the two councillors who voted against it were unfairly represented in your report that compared the cost to sandwiches.
They were not voting against support for the duplication per se. They simply asked a legitimate governance question about the appropriateness of public expenditure in the context of a federal election campaign. I presume the councillors who supported it sought advice that it is appropriate expenditure, and if that is the case, I fully support it.
But then it begs the question - if this type of funding is a reasonable use of ratepayer's money, then why haven’t this council done more in the last four years to publicly promote duplication of the Barton?
Effective advocacy costs nothing. It should not be left to a dedicated and deserving volunteer group to agitate our politicians for much needed infrastructure. We rely on elected (and paid) representatives to be the squeaky wheel, to knock down the doors of the infrastructure ministers, state and federal, and be the stone in their shoe until it’s done.
If councillors have been doing this, it certainly hasn’t been visible to Joe Ratepayer. Local government is no longer just about rates, rubbish and roads. Those ratepayers are usually also taxpayers. And we need every voice we can get to get the Barton duplicated. And to make sure the Yass Valley doesn’t continue to be ignored by every level of government.
Bec Duncan
Yass.
Nurses care and vote
Dear Editor,
I'm a nurse - I care and I vote. I'm very concerned that the massive cuts to future health funding are going to tie my hands as a nurse even further. The freeze on Medicare rebates and costs for screening tests is going to put even more pressure on hospital staff. I'm worried that penalty rates are at risk. The lack of staffing in aged care is unfair to our elderly and again puts even more pressure on hospitals.
This election, I want politicians to listen to nurses and support the health system - we care and we vote.
Sinerely,
Julie Choi.