Comments on: Kennett: hand outs good for Hawks, but not lazy low income earners

By: Greg Barns

Greg Barns — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Perhaps my critics can answer this question - should governments be in the business of sponsoring sporting teams? And can they quantify the benefit to Tasmania’s GDP of the sponsorship - I doubt it.

By: Digby

Digby — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

TO say this article is completely off the mark is an understatement. You don’t need to be right wing to think that limited means tested welfare such as baby bonuses are rubbish.

Or to see that the Tasmanian government’s sponsorship deal with the tasmanian government is a successfull business arrangement that provides a return on investment.

By: In the trough

In the trough — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Harsh indeed Mr. Barns. Perhaps Mr. Kennett in his discussion on welfare might enlighten us to how the average Victorian might exploit the Poker Machine taxes to enable those less fortunate in our community to join the Hawthorn Football Club of which Jeff is President to get a year long free feed, clothing and salary.
As I recall Hathorn ripped out $2million from Poker machine taxes that were supposed to be paid to the slack and apathetic ( or should that be pathetic) Victorian Govt to subsidise the costs Hawthron incurred in running its football club, paying its players (remember all those photos of players visiting sick children out of the goodness of their hearts, well think again as Jeff and his mighty hawks claimed every dollar they could to cover player salaries, travel, petrol, taxis etc etc etc for the time each player spent on each visit.
The players would not have even thought of such an action, so who did.
Perhaps Greg Barns might like to ask Mr. Kennett, or his Board, or club CEO or maybe Jeff might enlighten the welfare recipents of the state just how these things are achieved. Imagine each being paid 30% of the salary of a hawthorn player, welfare would not be needed then Jeff. They could be spoken of in glowing terms, high achievers, able to buy state of the art facilities, free to concentrate on their hobby each day all while other Victorians are pushing the buttons on the poker machines Hawthorn has in a strategically selected locations milking dollars from those that can least afford them. If you intend to visit such a location it will not be in leafy Camberwell or Hawthorn more likely right where those welfare recipients, Jeff sticks the boots into, live. An interesting thought just crossed my mind, "is Jeff biting the hand that feeds his football club, its players and its management staff"?
Without getting its snout into the Pokie Tax trough Hawthorn might have made a loss this year, imagine then what he would have said then!!

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I agree with the above commentators. Greg Barns straying from the law and justice is a pitiful thing.
Mind you Barns demonstrated no natural justice in his treatment of Kennett’s essential point.
40% of the population receiving some form of welfare is nuts and that is allowing for the many buts and howevers…..

By: gary

gary — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Written from the heart I'm sure Greg, but we need to accept a painful and initially unsympathetic principle - welfare should make life survivable, not comfortable. When it becomes comfortable, as it is in this country, people stop working. To have people in situations where they do not need to work or contribute is a social disaster. You only need to go, for instance, to the dole-fed suburbs of south west Sydney or the aboriginal townships of the outback to see this effect. (I note that I work in the first and have spent substantial time in the second.)

Now before a whole bunch of well-meaning people come stamping over this comment with talk of poverty lines and hardship, dispossession and marginalisation, the hugely disproportionate luxury of the wealthy, etc. please consider the words of Noel Pearson regarding the poison of welfare. Even better, go to either of the locations/areas I've mentioned and have a look at what actually happens when people are excused the task of looking after themselves.

By: Glenn Brandham

Glenn Brandham — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Kennett was handed a publicly funded lifeline after he was unceremoniously dumped by his electorate, does anybody remember? Howard handed him something called Australian Blue or was it Forever Blue, wait maybe it was Puberty Blue, or something like that. It had something to do with his battle with depression after losing the Premiership, oh I’m sorry, the job of Premier of Victoria. Apparently he recovered from his crippling depression after the former junta handed him a large sum of money following his publicly perceived failure to lead anything other than a long procession of Victorians north to Queensland. Funny how he now opposes giving needy people anything? And to answer your question Greg, no, government should never sponsor private sporting teams, but go figure.

By: Stephan

Stephan — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

This article is perhaps one of the poorest I have read from Grag Barns in a long time. There is very little by way of example for the argument he is trying to make.

On one had we are talking about federal government welfare, on the other we are talking about a State government making a commercial decision to entice tourism. After the premiership win I would say that is money well spent.

I will admit that Kennett bashing can be fun, the man does have a lot to say, but this was a porr attempt at it.