What changed, Grant?
Watching a TV election advertisement by Gilmore independent Grant Schultz this week, I was struck by his claim that "Gilmore has been ignored by the major parties for decades". When Mr Schultz was firming up as the federal Liberal candidate some months ago, he seemed proud to be an aspiring Liberal member. He has been a supporter of outgoing Liberal member Ann Sudmalis, and as far as I know has not been openly critical of the Liberal party until very recently. So what's changed here?
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Well, Mr Schultz was dumped recently as the Liberal candidate for Gilmore. Since that time he has been critical and hostile towards the Liberal party. He has previously said in the Times that the Liberals " are lacking in integrity". This may be simply sour grapes on his part? Nevertheless I'm curious as to what he actually stands for. Very recently he was happy to run as a Liberal, even though according to him they have ignored Gilmore and lack integrity. This contradiction needs to be addressed by Mr Schultz. I'd also be most interested to know what his position is on CSG drilling in Gilmore, and whether he supports the cuts in weekend penalty rates which the Liberals introduced last year. Come on Mr Schultz, tell us what you really stand for and why.
G. Miller, Termeil
Infighting on show
The Liberal National coalition appears to be falling apart. Firstly the preselected Gilmore Liberal candidate was stabbed in the back by Scott Morrison who then parachuted in his preference, Warren Mundine, a defector from another party. Now the joke continues with our former long term member for Gilmore, Joanna Gash, who it seems lost control of the party machine in Gilmore due to some good old in house back stabbing. Now Joanna Gash is supporting the Nationals candidate, Katrina Hodgkinson.
This again appears to be another payback to the Liberals from a former loyal member.
D. Phelps, Parma
Facts tell different story
Many of us in the Gilmore electorate received a personally addressed letter from Katrina Hodgkinson the National Party candidate for the election in May.
The letter is a completely vitriolic attack on Labor policies. In her letter, there is not one policy announcement of the LNP, not one ounce of encouragement to vote for this candidate.
The letter contains so much incorrect and misleading information about Labor policies that it would be laughable if it was not so serious.
What we have here is a deliberate and unfounded scare campaign aimed at retirees and investors.
Labor will not "tax hundreds of thousands of retirees to pay for Sydney-centric policies". This is an utterly absurd accusation!
The franking credits currently cost the Australian taxpayers around $6 billion a year, (more than is spent on education).
ABC Fact check has revealed the exaggerated untruths promulgated by the anti Labor lobbyists.
Claim: "Australia's least well off will bear the brunt of the pain."
Fact check: "Taxable income does not include retirees superannuation and no retirees on a pension or part pension will lose their franking credits.
Claim: "On average with a self-managed super fund you will be $12,000 worse off"
Fact check: Economic modelling by professors from the College of Business and Economics at the Australian National University found that the impact of Labor's policy would be greatest for the wealthier with assets of between $800,000k and $1.6 million which is the tax free limit for retirement accounts.
So Ms Hodgkinson's letter illustrates the total negativity of the National Party and was a total waste of time and money. It was also thoroughly disingenuous.
