On Monday night, Duncan Storrar became the face of the Turnbull Government’s tax cuts. He asked a simple question on Q&A, and his passionate rebuttal of Kelly O’Dwyer’s response captured the nation’s attention.
He took an abstract conversation about tax thresholds and bracket creep and turned into a personal story about how he was a disabled, under-employed man on benefits who couldn’t afford to take his daughter to the movies.
Storrar didn’t ask for a handout or charity. He simply pushed a politician on a policy and her answer was not really very satisfying.
The Q&A exchange that started it all:
Since Monday night he’s been held up by opponents of the Turnbull Government as a working class hero, and a crowdfunding campaign has raised $60,000 for Storrar and his family.
At the same time, Storrar’s life has been absolutely picked apart in the press. First, we were told he didn’t pay any tax. Then his estranged son said he was a terrible father and a drug-user. And today, we learned that Storrar has a criminal record. That he had smoked some pot.
Top Comments
What is the point exactly of assassinating Storrar's character?
His questions and comments were, when all is said and done, entirely valid. So what if it was a bit staged? Since when is it a criterion that the asker of a question has to demonstrate their legitimacy before being permitted to put a question?
It is invariably the panel members who are claiming to have the legitimacy and capacity to speak and respond intelligently to audience questions and all too often, the panel members make fools of themselves (in my view, witness Pru Goward in Q&A the following week). I don't normally watch Q&A when the panel includes a Labor and a Liberal politician, because they don't "answer" questions. They respond with the "party line" and/or bicker with their opponent and that is why Storrar's questions led the respondents to make fools of themselves. Proof positive that parties only govern in order to be re-elected, not to achieve good outcomes. Far better to persuade us that their latest brilliant policy is exactly what Australia needs right now". .
The fact is that Storrar he raised legitimate issues, raised them in a succinct manner and solicited responses that were, in essence, drivel. O'Dwyer is the worst example I can think of, of a party "stooge": of a politician who lacks the capacity for original thought. I assume that is why she got where she is, although being a (failed?) NAB bank executive obviously gave her the right credentials. Her alleged intellect can't stop her from talking garbage. Willox is simply a stooge for big business - who after all, pay his handsome salary. The fact is that the wealthy in this country receive far more in "handouts" by way of tax advantages than their poor counterparts (think the billions spent on infrastructure for the mining sector) and squeal when the government dares to suggest they can pay a bit more or lose some entitlements and still be wealthy - no sense of entitlement to be found there! And while the wealthy get concessions, conservative governments cry fiscal Armageddon and cut payments to the impoverished and disadvantaged - we can't afford it they shriek.
Attacks on the Duncan's and those like him are motivated, I suspect, because he was right.
"What is the point exactly of assassinating Storrar's character?".... What part of his criminal history isn't true?.
You seem to be missing the point though. If we ignore Duncan's dubious character (of significant domestic violence and other criminal acts), as a low income earner and welfare recipient, Duncan is a negative net tax payer! That means that Duncan already receives more in tax concessions and welfare payments than he pays in tax. A tax cut for him us irrelevant. It might have been more beneficial to Q&A to use a single, childless low income earner as their poster child because with the budget proposal, they are the people who will lose out the most. They get no tax concessions and still fund a portion of Duncan's welfare budget.
No I'm not perfect, but I've got no criminal history. I've been financially responsible for my own family and I've never expected the tax payer to fund my children's trips to the movies.