“Working Australians kick in $1bn to finance this? Well I’ve had enough, I want my money back.”
Ditto David:
“I’m more offended by the fact that more than $1bn of taxpayers’ hard-earned goes into funding this organisation that is increasingly only [self] serving a very narrow segment of Australian society.”
Ray replied:
“Take out the few good parts and just close the joint. Won’t be any buyers for their ABC either. Can’t believe nobody has the backbone for that.”
Jason wondered:
“How many hospitals and schools could be built for the billion dollars a year spent on these 4 channels. Just merge it with SBS or sell it off.”
Mr Bernard R said:
“There’s no justification for having two taxpayer funded TV stations. Why not merge ABC with its cousin SBS and save us all a heap of money which can be better used elsewhere.”
Peter pleaded:
“Please don’t wish that on SBS. SBS provides a good news service without the left wing bias so ingrained at the ABC.”
Colin complained:
“A decade or so ago, this was mandatory viewing in my household. Not any more due to its increasingly shrill progressive bent. In fact, the ABC rarely appears on our television. It seems that the more taxpayer money it receives the more the quality of programs declines, largely because of the politicisation of said programs.”
Kate’s World wondered:
“Who in their right mind even watches this program? I cannot believe any sensible person would even consider tuning in.”
Stephen suggested:
“Kate, it pays to know thine enemy (or at least be aware of where your taxpayer dollars are being wasted).”
Likethumb_up2
Alfred asked:
“Can we start a movement to divert taxpayer funds from the ABC to our farmers instead? Money better spent.”
Allan admitted:
“I used to watch/listen to the ABC several times a day for 70 years. No more — the news and current affairs are amateurish and biased. Classic FM abounds with lightweight presenters and senseless chatter. It seems to exist for the staff’s pleasure not the audience’s. It’s become an embarrassment. Time to shut it down. No longer my ABC either.”
Peter’s point:
“Maybe Ita needs to make a personal appearance on Q&A when the panel is stuffed full of useless activists, just so she can witness first-hand what the rest of us are paying our hard earned money for.”
Pat proclaimed:
“There are 3 certainties in life; death taxes and spineless politicians who refuse to take on the ABC!”
Myron mentioned:
“Fran Kelly (I’m an activist) was chairing this Q&A, yet failed to rebut these outrageous women advocating violence. Failure writ large.”
Simon said:
“I wrote to the ABC about their program “Get Krak’n” which depicted a dark-skinned woman ‘dropping a load of faeces’ on a cushion bearing the face of a white woman. It was classified as humour or art, or some such nonsense. Imagine if the faces were reversed! Of course the ABC failed to respond or take any action.”
Reuben noted:
“A couple of comments here have indicated that ‘Hamish will be better’. We haven’t seen the worst of Q&A yet. After seeing many of Hamish’s little ‘hobby horse’ issues while interviewing people on The Project and just shutting them down from his predetermined view is appalling. Watch this space for the so-called unbiased facilitator.”
–
Paul Kelly weighed in on Bill Shorten’s undiminished ambition despite a scathing Labor review which attributed the election loss to him being weak, risky and unpopular. Mary mooted:
“The electorate remembers Shorten not as the victim of Palmer and the Liberals. Palmer has pretty much no credibility among voters, a fact proven by his failed bid for power. As for the Libs ‘millions’ spent to prevent Shorten’s unabated desire for the Prime Mnistership, the Libs had far less money to spend than Labor. Shorten’s defeat was largely due to his involvement in bringing down two Labor prime ministers not in bringing down two Liberal prime ministers.
“The Libs did that themselves, Shorten simply capitalised on it. His defeat was also due to his being a foundation member of that scurrilous organisation, GetUp, and to GetUp being seen as the operational arm of Labor. These factors plus Shorten’s arrogance in considering the electorate stupid for wanting this know the cost of policies are at least some of the reasons Shorten was roundly rejected by the electorate. I have no doubt even now he has his eye on the keys to the Lodge.”
Colin’s comment:
“The longer Shorten hangs around the better it is for the Coalition.”
Lincoln’s view:
“Addicted to overrating himself. His ‘talent’ shown was not in leadership, it was in playing factional games. For 20 years, Shorten has vowed to sharpen his dagger still. The blessing for the ALP is that Shorten is exposed to have low credibility.”
Matt was mad:
“Anyone that would knowingly sell out the lowest paid employees to increase his voting bloc is unworthy of high office. I can never understand ripping off cleaners and veggie pickers.”
David declared:
“Best move on Bill to avoid further disappointment. I believe Bill is not the answer as PM for this country. Bill has baggage.”
Russell reckoned:
“As long as Bill Shorten with his pride, arrogance and hubris hangs around the ALP will never return to government. Even if he were not the leader how long would it be, with his record, before he set out to undermine any future leader as he has done in the past. He had his shot and blew it.
“The greatest service he can do the ALP is to move on, get a job in the real world and let a new generation of Labor leaders clean up the mess he and Bowen left.”
–
Adam Creighton ignited the wrath of retirees with his piece pointing out oldsters living $1m-plus homes are receiving more than $6.3bn a year in age pension payments, enough to fund income tax cuts that would supercharge economic growth. Vic let rip:
“Yes, my house is worth over $2m. To own it, I worked for 25 years, 7 days per week, no holidays, paid enormous amount of taxes, saved a bit for retirement and many that I know had trips, holidays, going out to restaurants and enjoy themselves and not save, paid less taxes, have a $600,000 house and get full pension. Is that fair?”
Bob’s bit:
“We have the same experience. Two couples we know own one home each, but are constantly overseas on holidays and running their super down at the same time. We manage to hold on to two houses (both homes have been in the family for decades), but don’t go on trips overseas.
“They draw a pension, we don’t. You make your choices in life, but I know which parties are pulling more from Government coffers.”
David said:
“Changing the rules for someone who worked for fifty years and paid off a home over 30 years only to be kicked off the pension because of inflation is unfair.”
Another Bob said:
“Those people paid their taxes and raised their families in those homes. They worked and a lot of them served. I am sick of these articles about retirees. They have lived their lives and made Australia a wonderful country, leave them alone!”
Janis disagreed:
“Pensions and Centrelink payments are not there to top up income to give you the life you are accustomed to. They are payments to pay for bare essentials for those struggling. All Australians should never forget that.
“Should raise retirement age to 70 years and factor house value — to start with base level- being average of house value for city deducted from actual house value. Australia cannot afford Australians sitting for 30 years milking the workers whingeing, whining, bleating for hand outs, as they book yet another cruise.”
Rhonda retorted:
“Janis, I hope your outrage also extends to the many who live their WHOLE working lives on the dole, never contributing anything to the treasury coffers, and then retire on the old age pension. We hear plenty of whinging and whining from these people also.”
Christine countered:
“There are a very few who fit your scathing critique, Janis. If the government is strapped for cash, maybe they could sell the ABC, cut the public service gravy train, leave the UN, just for starters.”
Claudia claimed:
“Here’s a tip. Why not look at a lengthy and thorough investigation into federal and state government super schemes? Believe you me, that’s where the money is going!”
Last word to Brett:
“Is it ‘independence’ to be living off the aged pension whilst sitting in a $2m house? Surely the independence you speak of means that people have scrimped and saved and can now fund their later years, at least partially. Is it so bad to ask these people to sell their $2m house and instead live in a $1m house and live off the $1m cash from the sale?”
–
Each Friday the cream of your views on the news rises and we honour the voices that made the debate great. To boost your chances of being featured, please be pertinent, pithy and preferably make a point. Solid arguments, original ideas, sparkling prose, rapier wit and rhetorical flourishes may count in your favour. Civility is essential. Comments may be edited for length.
Defence study is a wake-up call
Lifting defence spending is not about placating Donald Trump. It is about serving Australia’s interests. An allied, fortified stronghold in the north would protect the nation.
‘Extreme risk’ of AUKUS deal to US motivates Colby
If Elbridge Colby wasn’t inquiring about what an Australian government and military might or might not do should a conflict with China over Taiwan begin, he wouldn’t be doing his job.
Welcome to the column where you provide the content. Ita Buttrose gave orders to pull the latest Q&A from all ABC platforms after a panel of hardcore feminists appeared to advocate violence and arson. Damien was mad as hell and not going to take it anymore: