This election should be about more than which of two spendthrift assassins is likely to waste less money − yours− and to maintain Tony Abbott’s border control and national security regimes. While the Coalition is ahead on that test, many life-long Liberal voters suspect that Malcolm Turnbull will continue to drag the Liberal party towards Labor and the Greens. This suspicion was confirmed when, copying Labor’s attack on self funded retirees, Turnbull disturbed not only the Coalition heartland but also wavering aspirational voters. Turnbull did precisely what Tony Abbott had once warned against − he treated superannuation as a ‘piggy bank’ to raid whenever a government is in trouble. What was particularly shocking was the duplicitous way the changes were introduced, against all promises and assurances. Inspired by Labor’s call for a tax on superannuation over $75,000 pa, Turnbull did worse. With a brace of needlessly complicated rules, compliance costs were increased significantly while retirees were made even more the captive to the Reserve Bank’s obsession with low interest rates. When two ministers nervously admitted that the super changes would have unintended consequences, they probably hadn’t thought of what would happen if negative or near negative interest rates are adopted. This is not a problem with Labor’s model which caps the income and not the capital. But when Alan Jones suggested the overall contribution cap of $500,000 be suspended just as the ill-considered backpacker tax was, Turnbull refused. Yet when leftist author Richard Flanagan was reported as going ‘beserk’ over proposed copyright changes at the Australian Book Industry Awards, the government surrendered immediately.Not unreasonably, self-funded retirees and those planning this are now joining the nation’s farmers in seeing themselves to be abandoned. With super, the nation is starkly divided between rank-and-file commoners and a political aristocracy. Under the Turnbull provisions, the most a commoner can receive from a bank term deposit, without being subject to the new tax, is $36,800 pa. But our politico-aristocrats are retiring on around $200,000 pa from their platinum fund. To pay this from bank interest, a deposit of around $9 million would be necessary − about six times the cap Turnbull imperiously decreed for commoners.The platinum fund was closed in 2004 when the Liberals stole Mark Latham’s plan to do this, just before he retired in his early forties on a platinum pension. The replacement fund is goldplated, so generous most Australians can only dream about it. And of course, there was no question of any retrospective change for those in the platinum fund. This was ‘grandfathered’, something Turnbull and Morrison refuse to do for mere commoners. As for those politicians, retired or otherwise, who have so strongly defended the superannuation changes, are we to assume that they have on principle denied themselves the benefits of the platinum fund as did Ted Mack (twice) and Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen? The claim that superannuation had become a tax haven for the wealthy is just not true. Yes, there are a few large super accounts, but they were established under rules which haven’t applied for years. Rather than blindly following the politics of envy, Turnbull and Morrison should have checked the facts first.

When the RBA introduced credit charge surcharging in 2004, it claimed this would improve competition. It didn’t, at least for the public. Accused of ‘gouging’, some merchants imposed substantial surcharges which were much more than just recouping their costs. Now, a long twelve years later, the RBA has finally announced new rules limiting surcharges to recouping no more than bank charges. Why did this take so long? The RBA is sometimes treated as if were infallible. Its handling of surcharging demonstrates that it clearly is not. Its actions should be scrutinised more. So what is the benefit of imposing interest rates so low that the retired suffer and the young are priced out of housing?

Writing as a ‘perma-tanned Indonesian-born blow-in’ ( as a republican website described me) my advice to the ABC’s Michelle Guthrie is not to be like so many elites who try to be ‘relevant’ by being seen to be ever so ‘concerned’ about representation according to colour, race, accent, sex or indeed, gender− whether fluid or not. (An exception to the latter is where gender is actually of some importance, that is, in English grammar.) She could do worse than follow Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg. According to conservative broadcaster Glenn Beck, Zuckerberg concedes that he and most of his staff are overwhelmingly what we once called ‘small l liberal’. When conservatives complained of discrimination, he discussed this with them, admitted his leanings but insisted that he does not want Facebook to cut off or be biased against conservative opinion. He even proposes relying on artificial intelligence to ensure this when reporting news trends. Media ethics require that while the reporting of news be unbiased, an outlet is entitled to express its opinions. But public broadcasters are different. To fulfil its mission, the ABC must abandon its left wing editorial line – and not by replacing it with a right wing line. It should have no editorial line. If Michelle Guthrie wishes to be a successful and respected managing director she cannot delay. Once she succeeds in ridding the ABC of its bias, she should require it to complement rather than compete with commercial media.

The purge of democratically elected councils in NSW based on alleged benefits set out in some KPMG report disgracefully kept secret was bad enough. The purge excluded councils in some electorates where the Coalition’s chances in the federal election might be damaged. Worse, commissars were installed to rule as dictators until late 2017, reminiscent of a tin pot republic. Not surprising perhaps from a premier who joined in the Declaration of Desired Independence, the signatories apparently unaware of the fact we are already independent. This divisive document, released on Australia Day, called for a republic, leaving citizens to wonder why Premier Baird is so keen to be seen with all members of the Royal Family during every possible moment of every visit they make to Sydney.