InDaily InDaily

Support independent Journalism Donate Subscribe
Support independent journalism

Reader contributions

Your views: on SA Health, land tax and Newstart

Reader contributions

Today, readers comment on another public hospital rostering failure, Labor’s land tax opposition, and the federal government’s financial priorities.

Print article

Commenting on the story: Heart attack victim diverted as no cardiologists rostered on at QEH 

Another bureaucratic error laid at the feet of SA Health. 

No repercussions, no layoffs or dismissals. 

Just a get well soon card from SA Health, with the promise of a full and comprehensive investigation, to be archived as soon as possible.  Mike Lesiw 

Commenting on the story: Kill Bill: Labor scuttles Libs’ land tax compromise

What’s happening in the world of SA politics?

We have the Greens siding with the Liberals on the issue of aggregation of land tax, and Labor acting like the right-wing of the Libs in their opposition to the bill.

As a Labor voter, I was bitterly disappointed when Peter Malinauskas announced that his party would oppose the land tax changes proposed by the State Government.

Such a move is totally against the values and philosophy of Labor and, as is plainly obvious, a cheap political ploy to woo business to support Labor at the next State election. 

Very easy to see through.

Labor supporting business? Business supporting Labor? The world (as we know it) is upside-down and back-to-front. – Luke Faulkner

Commenting on the story: “In survival mode”: South Australian tell of life on Newstart

What can you say about a government that awards a $27 million dollar contract to a mining company on Christmas Island for “facilities management” – facilities that are currently being used to accommodate 4 individuals, the Sri Lankan parents Nades and Priya and their young daughters Kopika and Tharnicaa, while they await the outcome of their legal fight against deportation – and then claims it has no money to address the decline in the value of Newstart Allowance?  

The family did not have to secreted out of Australia at night (another cost) and could readily have been required to stay in the community, perhaps subject to reporting requirements. 

 The treatment of this family is shameful and there are millions of Australian taxpayers who would agree with me on that point, just as there are millions of taxpayers who agree with the need to address the value of Newstart. 

Of course we can’t make a direct link in terms of money; however, we can make a direct link in terms of good and humane public policy, good governance and sound economic management. 

The $27 million should have been reallocated from The Department for Home Affairs to the Department of Social Security at no cost to the taxpayer. 

That might represent the first tangible evidence of ‘sound economic management’. – Michael O’Neil

Want to comment?

Send us an email, making it clear which story you’re commenting on and including your full name (required for publication) and phone number (only for verification purposes). Please put “Reader views” in the subject.

We’ll publish the best comments in a regular “Reader Views” post. Your comments can be brief, or we can accept up to 350 words, or thereabouts.

InDaily has changed the way we receive comments. Go here for an explanation.

Make a comment View comment guidelines

Local News Matters

Media diversity is under threat in Australia – nowhere more so than in South Australia. The state needs more than one voice to guide it forward and you can help with a donation of any size to InDaily. Your contribution goes directly to helping our journalists uncover the facts. Please click below to help InDaily continue to uncover the facts.

Donate today
Powered by PressPatron

More Reader contributions stories

Loading next article