Steven Westbrook writes: They are playing with political fire here. The punters are much more wise to retail funds since the industry fund free publicity afforded by the royal commission. Imagine the publicity campaign the industry funds could fund if the government tried some legislative vandalism.
Peter Hannigan writes: Very apt! We do have our own nomenklatura where people work for and then get positions in government, existing in their own perfect bubble reality. To question that reality is to lose the possibility of personal progression — and juicy salaries. The IPA certainly fits the mould as their members crawl into Liberal Party positions, but there are elements of this behaviour in Labor ranks as well.
Andrew Reilly writes: How can the government know that a citizen’s non-purchase of B is because of C, or just because they just don’t have the funds? Perhaps they could do more work towards ensuring that the citizens are in a position to choose one way or the other, by making sure that they have more available funds. If one is to believe the recent economic reports, there is a global trend towards the non-purchasing of everything. Needless to say that won’t be pleasing the believers in markets.
Lesley Graham writes: I’m a counsellor. If these pollies have had to spend all this money on “learning to empathise”, which really they either have as part of their inherent skill set or not, no amount of money is going to make them come across as even vaguely caring or even giving a rats…
Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to [email protected]. We reserve the right to edit comments for length and clarity. Please include your full name if you would like to be considered for publication.