It's time for Tam's Takes - you ask the questions, and I answer them! This month you've asked me about parliamentary pensions and what goes on behind the scenes in Parliament.
I also share some of your thoughts below on the Voice and the Stage 3 tax cuts. Thanks to everyone who has emailed me their thoughts so far. Don't forget you can tell me what's on your mind at firstname.lastname@example.org!
Before we dive into it: have you checked out my campaign to save local pharmacies? If you haven't, click here to email your local Labor MP or Senator. Tell them you don't want $3.5 billion ripped out of community pharmacies.
Why don't politicians have to wait until they're 67 before they collect their parliamentary pension?
- Ian (via email)
We don't get pensions anymore and unless we've been in Parliament prior to 2004.
So Jacqui and I won't be getting political pensions, and I think that's an amazing. Thing that they did because I agree politicians shouldn't get specific pensions other than their superannuation.
Like everyday people we're just like everybody else out there, we've gotta wait and we're happy to do that.
Out of sight of the camera, just how well do politicians get on with those from the opposition?
- Bev (via email)
We treat each other with respect and kindness. Just like any workplace, some people get on better than others, and that's normal.
You can't be everybody's best mate. But a lot of what you see on TV or even on Senate ParlView, a lot of it's theatre. It's all about getting your attention and making you listen to what they're saying. And some of the people that have been there a very long time are very good at it. Check out Michaelia Cash.
She is the best performer on the floor that you see day to day. I won't be that dramatic. I wanna be like you out there on the street and have chats and be kind and respectful and make sure that I'm doing my job right. So if I ever turn into a drama queen or a diva, reach out.
Last month I shared my thoughts about two major topics in the media - the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, and the Stage 3 tax cuts. Here's what you had to say on these issues:
I support almost every thing you do but I don't agree with your yes vote on the voice saying that I believe everyone has the right to vote using their personal belief system and I personally thank you for your honesty regarding the way you are casting your vote on this issue
My view is that there should be modelling commissioned on the Stage 3 tax cuts in terms of their inflationary impact, house price impact, job creation, and impact on the real productive capacity of the economy.
Then we can make an informed decision on how to proceed.
As for the Voice, while I agree with the concept, I cannot support it as currently exists. We don't know what we don't know and it is too important to mess up. I would like to see it legislated with a 5 year sunset clause to see how it works before Constitutional amendments.
For that group you think should get the state 3 cuts, those earning $45,000 to $120,000, the loss of the tax offset will mean they gain little or no benefit. So instead of changing the tax system, and making it highly regressive, why not just leave the low and middle income tax offset in place. That targets additional benefit to those most in need.
So instead of proceeding with the stage 3 cuts I think we should abandon them totally.
Tammy, thanks for views on the Voice and for not trying to persuade people to your point of view. I’m all in favour of recognising our indigenous peoples in the Constitution; however, for me the sting in the tail of the Referendum proposition is that recognition is through the instrumentality of establishing The Voice.
Got thoughts on what's in the news right now? Send them to me at email@example.com and I'll pick some to be featured next month.
Want to know what I've been talking about in the media lately? Check out my latest opinion pieces and media releases here.