It is difficult to reconcile the Turnbull government's election plan to deliver tax cuts to "small" companies, many of which are offshore, turning over $2 million to $10 million a year, with its determination to deny some of Australia's poorest families an energy supplement worth from $4.40 to $7.05 a week.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The company tax proposal, a 21st century incarnation of the Reagan-era's "trickle down" economics, was the cornerstone of the Coalition's "jobs and growth" program heading into the recent poll.
That, readers will recall, didn't go so well for the government.
The abolition of the energy supplement, which does not apply to households already receiving the benefit, is one of the "Zombie" measures left hanging by the failure of Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey to get key elements of their first budget through the Senate in 2014.
According to the Australian Council of Social Service there are $18 billion worth of such "Zombie" cuts still lurking in the wings.
ACOSS argues that if the government is successful in getting all of these measures through the new Senate, a sole parent with two teenagers who goes on to a disability benefit or Newstart after they took effect would be $96 a week worse off than a "grandfathered" recipient.
Under the changes an unemployed 22-year-old living away from their parents home would be $51 a week worse off. They would also have to forgo more than $1000 in income support because of the extended wait for payments to start.
One reason the Coalition fared poorly in the election was a large proportion of the electorate, fearful of changes to Medicare, suspected the government was more sympathetic to the big end of town.
Neither Mr Turnbull or Mr Abbott have been able to persuade John Howard's battlers they care about those in society who have experienced some of the worst life has to offer.
This feeds into a narrative, already well-documented in the United Kingdom and the United States, in which "the people who have been left behind" by the transition to a new economy that has left the rich richer support Brexit, Donald Trump and Pauline Hanson out of protest.
None of this is new to organisations such as ACOSS which has been saying for years that budget cuts to welfare payments and benefits have a disproportionate impact on low-income households.
A family with two workers on the average wage of $80,000 has a combined income of $160,000 a year. The loss of $10 a week under these circumstances is negligible.
In a single-parent household where the only income is from welfare payments the loss of $10 a week is vastly more significant.
If we have reached the point where the government believes the only way to make ends meet is to rob poor Peter to pay rich Paul then it has genuinely lost its moral compass.
